Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RIVER CALDER (WELBECK SITE) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Care in the Community

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the progress of care in the community; and if she will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The community care reforms have got off to a good start, a view confirmed not least by the Association of Directors of Social Services—who are responsible for implementing them—and by the Audit Commission. I am confident that the foundations have been laid for a system providing quality, diversity and choice for users and carers. In implementing care in the community, we must be sure that the most vulnerable patients, especially those who are severely mentally ill, are cared for properly. That is why I am introducing a series of measures, including supervision registers and the proposed new power of supervised discharge, to protect both patients and the public.

Mr. Greenway: Is not it typical of this Government that they should put the vulnerable first? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that under no circumstances will dangerous people be released from psychiatric care into the community, where they could be a threat to others? Will she also reassure all elderly people that they will always have the hospital and medical treatment that they need, regardless of their age?

Mrs. Bottomley: We recently issued guidance on the discharge of patients from psychiatric hospitals. Patients should not be discharged unless or until it is safe to discharge them. We are also introducing supervision registers and hope to introduce the power of supervised discharge. No one wants to turn back the clock to the old days of incarceration in isolated communities, but there are psychiatric patients who need active support in the community; they need resources targeted on them and we seek to achieve that. My hon. Friend will be well aware that his constituents, like mine, have increased their life expectancy by another two years in the past 10 years. Some

16 per cent. of the population are over 65, and 40 per cent. of the health budget is spent on them—and quite rightly too.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Secretary of State aware of the very real fears among many people concerned with community care over the Government's proposals to reduce the number of inspections of care and nursing homes, bearing in mind the circumstances of the recent case of a woman in a private nursing home in Dulwich who died with ulcers which had live maggots on them at the time of death? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh No."] Conservative Members may shout, but in my constituency an elderly lady choked to death in a private care home simply because the staff had no basic first aid training. In view of those cases, is not it nonsensical to move towards reducing inspections? Should not we be increasing them instead?

Mrs. Bottomley: Care in the community provides support for some of the most frail and vulnerable. They need access to complaints procedures and confidence in the places where they live. However, there is a difference between inspections satisfying standards of care and petty bureaucracy and interference. Many of my hon. Friends report from their constituencies concerns that left-wing authorities have been hostile to the private and independent sectors. We want to reduce some of the petty regulation. None of that should undermine the safety of the individuals concerned.

Mr. Barry Field: Has my right hon. Friend seen the threatening letter that the Liberal Democrat-controlled Isle of Wight county council sent to pensioners about care in the community, despite the fact that the Government gave the council an additional £1 million? Does not that have more to do with political ambition than with providing care in the community?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend, who is a great champion of the Isle of Wight, is absolutely right. Care in the community has been formidably generously funded.

Madam Speaker: Question 2. Mr. Dalyell.

Mrs. Bottomley: May I finish my answer, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: I thought that the right hon. Lady had finished. We seem to have made a very bad start with questions today. I hope that hon. Members will be more brisk from now on. Of course the right hon. Lady must finish what she has to say.

Mrs. Bottomley: I know the Liberals only too well in the Isle of Wight, as does my hon. Friend. I also know the Liberals in Portsmouth, who circulated scare stories about pensioners paying prescription charges. That is par for the course. We get on and deliver the policies and fund them fairly.

Human Foetus Research

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had from the Research Defence Society about her policy in relation to research on the human foetus.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I have received no such representations.

Mr. Dalyell: How come that in January, Ministers welcomed the public consultation that was initiated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority on donated ovarian tissue, yet come April, they agreed to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), apparently drafted in their Department, to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which completely pre-empted what they had said back in January? What happened to change their minds between January and April?

Mr. Sackville: May I make it absolutely clear to the House that the drafting help that was afforded to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) was simply to put her amendment in order? It was the subject of a free vote in the House of Commons and, in the event, it went through on the nod. Every single hon. Member was able to vote entirely according to his or her conscience.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was in touch this morning with the Research Defence Society, with which I have some connections? The society assured me that it has absolutely nothing to say about the matter, and that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had been misinformed. The society exists to protect research against animal liberation groups and is absolutely nothing to do with the preservation of human fertilisation from the eggs of aborted foetuses.

Mr. Sackville: While I am aware of the continuing and consistent interest in research of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I am also aware of the accuracy of what my hon. Friend has said.

Health Service Staff

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the effect of this year's pay award on the number of health service staff employed by trusts and health authorities.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: None. The pay award is covered by efficiency savings. The estimate that we have made is that by using efficiently the extra £1.6 billion provided for the National Health Service this year, a further 4 per cent. of patients will be treated.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer; I hope that it turns out to be true. If it is, I ask her to speak to the Secretary of State for Wales, because the chairman of the trust in my constituency, which is in Wales, has written on behalf of all the other trusts to tell him that the provision made for funding in Wales will result in cuts in staff and services to patients. Will she please give him advice on how to achieve the targets about which she has just told me?

Mrs. Bottomley: I have frequent discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Both of us are determined to put patients first and to use the resources that the taxpayer gives to the health service to provide an ever higher quality and quantity of care. That is taking place in Wales, and in England, too.

Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the inhibitions to the continuing astonishing success of the trusts is the continuation of the Whitley national scales?

Will she give the House some assurance that that shadow, which hangs over all the negotiations conducted by trusts, will soon be looked at again?

Mrs. Bottomley: One of the most important freedoms that NHS trusts have is the ability to devolve pay and negotiations. Pay is the central cost in the NHS, and inflexible, rigid patterns, much loved by the Labour party—the poodle of the public sector unions—is an inhibition to our using our staff as flexibly and effectively as we can for patients.

Community Care

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met representatives of the local authority associations to discuss community care changes.

Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met the Carers National Association to discuss the community care changes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I frequently meet the local authority associations and the Carers National Association to discuss a range of issues including community care.

Mr. Campbell: When the Minister next meets the association, will he take up the case of community care for drug abusers? Is he aware that five teenagers in my constituency have died over the past two years, four of them in the past six months? People are beginning to feel that care in the community is not quite working. Although some money has been put into it, we feel that those teenagers died without even getting to the first stage of care in the community. Will the hon. Gentleman call for an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding their deaths?

Mr. Bowis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, from his experience in Northumberland, will acknowledge that the inspectors of social services have recorded that a very good start has been made there. That is a great tribute to Northumberland's director of social services.
The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to one particular point about young people. I am aware of the problem affecting them—it is solvent abuse. I am also aware, as he is, that a special group has been set up to look into the problem. It will report to the health authorities, which can then take appropriate action.

Mr. Heppell: Does the Minister accept that carers of people with psychiatric disabilities need respite as much as, if not more than, other carers? How does he account for the fact that although 25,000 psychiatric beds have been lost from hospitals, only 9,000 additional places have been provided in day centres? Why is there such a disparity?

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and I fully accept that carers need a break. The whole House would pay tribute to the contribution of carers to care in the community and community care. That is one reason why, in this year's financial settlement for local government, we incorporated an additional £20 million for respite services for carers. We want to build on what has been achieved.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is important that health authorities, when planning their services, take account of the need for respite care in psychiatric cases as well as the need for acute services. I am sure that he is


pleased about the recent report from the Carers National Association, which shows that of those surveyed who had had an assessment, 78 per cent. had received some form of respite in the previous year.

Mrs. Lait: Will my hon. Friend ask East Sussex county council how it justifies the Lib-Lab policy of referring all respite care cases to county council homes, at a cost to the council taxpayer of £100 per week more than the cost in the private sector? Does he agree that that is a waste of public money—some £3.5 million a year—and will he please tell the council to stop it?

Mr. Bowis: I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's words to East Sussex county council. I cannot answer for Labour or Liberal policies in that area; I doubt whether the House could understand them even if the parties explained them themselves. It is right to say, however, that if authorities fail to use the range of provision available, including the whole of the independent sector—private and voluntary—they will not get the best service for those in need in their areas. I imagine that the Audit Commission, when it does its surveys, will have something to say about that.

Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that this would be a good moment to remind local authorities, including East Sussex county council, that the 85 per cent. figure for funding in the independent sector is a minimum, not a maximum?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. That 85 per cent. represents the continuation of the 100 per cent. provision for support for community care in the independent sector under the old social security system. The purpose of the 85 per cent. figure is to give stability to the voluntary and private sectors during this period of change—and, indeed, stability for the residents in the homes. It is also to give authorities and the private and voluntary sectors time to diversify so that they can make an even greater contribution to community care.

Mr. McCartney: Would the Minister like to be a bit more candid about the issues raised in the report of the Carers National Association? Did not 93 per cent. of respondents say either that services had not improved or that they had worsened since the introduction of community care? Perhaps the Minister could be a bit more open about the problems affecting both funding and access to services. That would help the Opposition to come to terms with many of the problems that carers now face—the greatest of which is the Government's disastrous policy of trying to write off the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Can the Minister give us some indication of whether his Department will provide more time for that Bill, so that it can become law?

Mr. Bowis: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman has read the report to which he referred. I certainly have, but, having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I suspect that he has only read the press release that accompanied it. He would learn most by reading the entire report, and I commend it to him.
If he had indeed read the report, the hon. Gentleman would know that the survey was carried out just a few months into the new community care system. More important, he would have read that 72 per cent. of carers interviewed said that they had found the assessment thorough, 75 per cent. said that they had received a break,

92 per cent. said that they encountered no difficulty in obtaining services at weekends and 92 per cent. said that they felt that their position was at least as good as it had been before, if not better.
We care about carers. We recognise the contribution that they make, and we are intent on working with them and continuing to improve care for people in need in our community.

Madam Speaker: We must be brisker.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome some of the positive advances that have been made, but will the Minister bear in mind early-day motion 1176, which reveals some anxiety in the House about the concern expressed by the Carers National Association in regard to needs still to be met?

Mr. Bowis: We shall continue to work with carers, and with the hon. Gentleman, if he brings any specific matters to our attention. I cannot say off the top of my head that I am acquainted with the early-day motion that he mentioned, but we shall examine the issue carefully with the carers. As the hon. Gentleman said, progress is being made; we look forward to further progress in the future.

General Practitioners' Contract

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the general practitioners' contract.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): We have received various representations on aspects of the general practitioners' contract. We welcome the continuing and constructive discussions with the profession, and others, that have resulted.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to what was said when the GPs' contract was being introduced? Did not both the doctors' trade union and the Opposition go around frightening the sick and the vulnerable, telling them that cytology and immunisation would decrease and doctors' lists would massively increase? Given that the result of the contract has been a significant improvement in services, how can we trust any pronouncement from the Labour party, which was prepared to use the sick and the vulnerable as pawns in its own political game?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party was against the contract and against deprivation payments; through its spokesman, it said that the immunisation levels were too heroic for GPs to attain. In all respects, indeed, the Labour party has been as wrong as it was about Jennifer's ear. I extend that deprecation to all on the Opposition Benches—apart from Offa, whose last Health Question Time this is. I wish her a long, happy, peaceful and politics-free retirement.

Ms Lynne: Can the Minister assure the House that under the new GPs' contract that is currently being negotiated, which would allow GPs to stop night visits other than in exceptional circumstances, other services such as night surgeries will be in place before any GP night visits are curtailed? Although I understand the reason for the changes, I think that patients' needs must be protected.

Dr. Mawhinney: The whole House will be disappointed that the hon. Lady did not rise to apologise to the pensioners of Portsmouth, and those in need on the Isle of Wight, for her party's policies. I am happy to confirm, however, that 24-hour cover, home visits and GPs' responsibility for their patients have been retained, and that over time primary care centres will be developed, providing an additional option for patients.

Notifiable Diseases

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy in respect of additions to and subtractions from the list of notifiable diseases.

Mr. Sackville: The notification system is one of the methods by which health authorities are alerted to the need to prevent further cases of a communicable disease. It also assists in the planning and valuation of long-term preventive strategies, such as immunisation campaigns.

Mr. French: Is my hon. Friend aware that the streptococcal infection known as necrotising fasciitis—a galloping gangrene-type disease, which can eat human flesh at the rate of an inch an hour—is not on the list of notifiable diseases? Does not he feel that the definition of "notifiable" ought to be revised to include conditions that are rampant and lethal and in respect of which early diagnosis and recognition of the symptoms may make the difference between life and death?

Mr. Sackville: I can assure my hon. Friend that if notification in any way contributed to the treatment of the individual patient or to the prevention of the infection spreading to other patients, I would certainly recommend it. I am aware that a number of severe streptococcal infections become necrotising fasciitis. It is extremely rare that there is a cluster of such cases such as that in his area, which is being investigated urgently by the Public Health Laboratory Service. I am advised by leading public health experts that, except for the Gloucestershire cluster, the pattern and number of those cases is not out of line with what is normally expected. However, I assure the House that we will continue to do everything possible to find the source of those infections and ensure that there are not further incidents.

Mr. Blunkett: I do not think that the House or the country will be at all satisfied with that reply from the Under-Secretary. Is not the cluster in Gloucestershire completely out of line with previous experience? Will the Under-Secretary tell the House not only what the PHLS is doing but what steps he and the Secretary of State intend to take to allay understandable fears by indicating how the infection is being tracked and what preventive measures are being taken across the country to ensure that this extremely worrying development is laid to rest?

Mr. Sackville: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the literature on the subject reports that there has been only one other case of a cluster of such infections, which was in Norway. We are leaving no stone unturned in trying to locate the reason for the cluster and find the connection between the cases, some of which, tragically, have been fatal. The Public Health Laboratory Service is investigating and is giving every assistance to the local national health service staff in Gloucestershire. That process will continue until we have some answers.

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend will be aware of the real concern and anxiety that exist in Gloucestershire, especially in my constituency. My hon. Friends and I met the chairman and the chief executive of the local national health service trust recently and they are doing all that they can. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Department of Health will do its very best to try to find a cure to this awful disease at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Sackville: It appears that, when the infection reaches the stage of necrosis, the only answer is surgery. We will ensure that those cases, if they continue to appear, are treated with all dispatch.

General Practitioners

Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much, on average, general practitioner fundholders spend on purchasing health care in the private sector.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: General practitioner fundholders can purchase health care from whichever hospital best suits the needs of their patients. In 1992–93, fundholders spent just over 1.5 per cent. of their budget with non-NHS organisations. In doing so, they have improved waiting times, convenience and standards of service for patients.

Mr. Mandelson: Is not it a scandal that the draining of public funds from the national health service to private medicine has doubled since 1991 and that the national health service has been denied much-needed cash as a result of that policy? Is not it also a classic illustration of the two-tier health system that the Government are creating? Is not it now time for Ministers to impose a strict limit on that diversion of public funds to private health care?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman may think that 1.5 per cent. is a substantial sum, but I have to disagree. As ever, he is scaremongering and speaks as the political apparatchik that he is. His obsession with the ownership of the means of production shows him to be the clause 4 socialist so typical of the Labour party. He failed to tell us that no patient in his constituency waits more than 12 months for treatment and that a maternity unit there recently received a quality award and has won "Heartbeat" awards. There have been a great many developments, in addition to the further initiatives pioneered by fundholders, from which all patients benefit.

Mr. Forman: Did I hear my right hon. Friend say 1.5 per cent? Does not that represent exceptionally good value for money for patients and for the health service? What proportion of general practitioners are now in fundholding practices?

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. A modest amount is now spent in the independent sector, but we are motivated by patients, not by the means of providing care. We want to look for ever-better value for money that provides quality and quantity of patient care. Just over 35 per cent. of the population benefits from GP fundholding practices, but we want to extend the benefits of fundholding as far and wide as we possibly can. Fundholding has changed the balance of power in the NHS and changed it in favour of the patient.

Ms Primarolo: Is the Secretary of State aware that £268 million—a not insubstantial amount—was spent in private hospitals in 1992–93 Is she also further aware that one fundholding practice in Colchester spent 90 per cent. of its funds at a local private hospital? Does she agree that it is unacceptable that taxpayers' money should be used to subsidise private hospitals and private profit when national health service hospitals are running out of money and turning patients away? When will she protect the NHS against private medicine—a move which would benefit patients?

Mrs. Bottomley: Now you see them in their true colours, Madam Speaker—a party dominated by the public sector unions. Patients will not trust the Labour party until its spokesmen renounce their National Union of Public Employees sponsorship. The Labour party is dominated by the interests of the public sector unions, not the interests of patients. I recall Barbara Castle's comments on her decision to abolish pay beds. She said that it was
an essential political sweetener for the unions.
A recent document again revealed the vendetta against the private sector and the private bed. Our prejudice is in favour of patients.

Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that fundholders have introduced innovation in their approaches to patient care, which have demonstrated the benefits of devolved budgets? Is she aware that GP fundholders not only spend under their drug budgets but spend less than non-fundholders?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend identifies precisely why GP fundholding has been so successful. GP fundholders prescribe around 4 per cent. more cost effectively than non-fundholders. That is one of many examples of the way in which GP fundholders have used the resources at their disposal cautiously and effectively, acting as good stewards so that they can extend the quality and quantity of care. GP fundholders are not given more money, but do more with the money that they are given. We want to level up a top-tier service.

Asthma

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimate of the number of individuals suffering from asthma in each of the past five years.

Mr. Sackville: A recent estimate suggests that there are 2.5 million in the United Kingdom.

Mr. McFall: Does the Minister realise that asthma is now the health scandal of the 1990s? There are more than 3 million sufferers, and one in seven of all children suffer from the disease. In addition to the human suffering, there is an economic cost. Does he accept that any preventive medical programme should take that into consideration? When will the Government start doing something about the increasing number of asthma sufferers?

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman shows his total ignorance of the fact that the new doctors' contract includes a chronic disease management programme, which means a call and recall system for asthma sufferers to ensure that their management of the disease is properly organised, that they are monitored and that they are aware of all the medication and of all the other action that can be taken.

Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend undertake to re-examine "The Health of the Nation" and to think about setting targets for asthma prevention, as I understand happens in Scotland?

Mr. Sackville: Yes, but we believe that we shall make a great deal of progress on asthma treatment now that we have a proper monitoring programme within primary care.

National Health Service Trusts

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have cut any senior executives' pay following the establishment of a remuneration committee.

Dr. Mawhinney: That information is not available centrally.

Mr. Ainger: That answer does not surprise me, but several independent reports and monitoring services have suggested that when trusts move from general management control within the NHS to so-called independence, the senior executives receive very significant pay rises. Moreover, the independent monitoring services have identified the pay rises for 1992–93—the latest year for which trust accounts have been published—and found that some chief executives received increases in salary of 33 per cent. Is not it possible for the Government now to instruct the trusts to set up proper remuneration committees to ensure that that gravy train is ended?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's trade union friends will be pleased by that pat on the back. On 28 April, the Secretary of State announced codes of conduct and accountability that require NHS bodies to establish audit and remuneration and terms of service committees. That happens to be the case. I shall give the hon. Gentleman some information for which he need not look to monitoring committees: for every manager in the health service there are 26 doctors and nurses and senior and general managers represent 2 per cent. of the work force and 3 per cent. of the wages bill. What is most important, and what the Labour party has again demonstrated that it does not understand, is the fact that the health service exists to deliver more patient care, of higher quality, and at greater convenience, year on year. That is what is happening, and managers are playing their part in making it happen.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the perpetual scaremongering by the Labour party does appalling damage to morale in the health service, where there is really a hell of a lot of good news? Is not that scaremongering nothing more than cynical manipulation of the fears of the elderly and frail?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend should understand that Labour scaremongering is really embarrassment and an attempt to cover up the paucity of Labour health policy. The truth is that for every 100 patients treated in the year before the reforms, this year we expect to treat 121—a marvellous record. When the Labour party was in power, 1 per cent. more patients, on average, were treated in the health service each year. Since our reforms, more than 5 per cent. more patients, on average, have been treated per


year. That is a measure of the co-operation of the doctors, the nurses, the other professionals and the managers in developing more and better health care.

Mr. Blunkett: How the Minister knows that, when he does not collect the information centrally, is beyond all of us. In view of his original answer—that the information is not collected centrally—perhaps he will tell us why the Gloucestershire royal trust, in a letter to me dated 13 April, said that it would not answer any questions from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and would answer only to the NHS management executive? And does not that "Hear, hear" from Conservative Members reveal that the Conservative party has abandoned even the least pretence of believing in democracy?

Dr. Mawhinney: First of all, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the decisions of the trust are a matter for the trust. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The decisions of the trust are a matter for the trust. As the hon. Gentleman and Labour Members continually denigrate the work of those who work in the health service, it may be that the trust has decided to side with those who work in the trust providing more and better patient care, rather than pampering to the political ideology of the Labour party.

Practice Nurses

Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practice nurses are currently employed by general practitioners; and what the figures were in 1979.

Dr. Mawhinney: Many practice nurses work part time. Translated into whole-time equivalents, the number rose from 992 in 1979 to 9,605 last year—an increase of nearly 900 per cent.

Mrs. Roe: Does not that figure show clearly the phenomenal development in primary care and general practice since 1979? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the opportunity for GPs to delegate a wide range of tasks to practice nurses both eases their work load and makes a significant contribution to the achievement of targets on immunisation and screening?

Dr. Mawhinney: As always, my hon. Friend has it exactly right. She will be pleased to know that in 1979 there were approximately 20,000 practice staff and in 1993, the figure had risen to approximately 54,000. To put it another way, in 1979, we were spending £43 million on practice staff and last year, we spent £514 million on practice staff, which has enabled GPs to do precisely what my hon. Friend identified.

Mr. Bayley: Will the Minister agree to bring in a change to the funding of the health service so that the same capitation funding formula applies to fundholding and non-fundholding GPs, the two-tier system is abolished and the patients of both types of GP have an equal opportunity to benefit from practice nurses?

Dr. Mawhinney: There no two-tier system, as the hon. Gentleman knows—there is a proper allocation of capitation resources to fundholders and non-fundholders. Indeed, I believe that I am right in saying, if he casts his mind back to the evidence that I gave to the Select Committee when he was a member of it, that some of the

latest information suggests that GP fundholders may be receiving marginally less per number of patients than non-fundholders.

National Health Service Patients

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest figure for the number of patients treated in NHS hospitals in the North Western region before 1 April; and what was the equivalent figure in (i) 1990–91 and (ii) 1978–79.

Mr. Sackville: Hospital patient activity in the former North Western region rose from 503,000 in 1978–79 to 711,000 in 1990–91 and 775,000 in 1992–93.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Bolton hospitals trust on slashing waiting lists to nil for those who have been waiting more than 18 months and to half for those who have been waiting more than 12 months? Does he look forward to Bolton's new £45 million hospital—the largest in the north-west—which will slash waiting lists even further?

Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend and I have a common interest in congratulating Bolton hospital on its achievements over the past 10 years. I pay a tribute to my hon. Friend for the part that he played in securing that wonderful new hospital for Bolton.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that I waited 20 months for a first appointment with a specialist in Bolton hospital? Is not that a hidden waiting list?

Mr. Sackville: We have made enormous progress in cutting down the unacceptably long waits. The hon. Gentleman's GP had the option to ensure that his case was treated as a priority.

Priorities And Key Challenges

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received following the publication of her Department's paper on priorities and key challenges 1994–95 to 1997–98; and if she will make a statement.

Dr. Mawhinney: Since the publication of that document on 18 April, a number of questions have been asked by one hon. Member and we have received a small number of telephone calls from members of the public. No representations have been made.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Brandreth.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brandreth: The House has clearly mistaken me for my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the national health service is the largest organisation in Europe, costing about £100 million per day? Can he also confirm that the service is being used by more patients than ever and that, where three years ago, 100 patients were treated in hospital, it is now 121? Will he confirm that his key priorities will be best practice and increased patient care?

Dr. Mawhinney: I can confirm exactly what my hon. Friend said and that that is true in his part of the country and in Chester. The Government have presided over a huge


increase in the number of patients treated, a significant increase in the quality of treatment, a huge improvement in the convenience of that treatment to patients and a major expansion—64 per cent. in real terms—in resources delivered to the health service for the benefit of patients. That is a record of which we are proud and to which the Opposition can only aspire.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Dr. Wright: What does the Prime Minister say to the woman in my constituency who phoned my office the other day to thank me for taking up her husband's case in relation to the Child Support Agency, but who said that could close the file—the file that I have here—because her husband had just killed himself? Has not the time come when it is no longer enough to say that we all support the principle of the agency—which we do—or that it is being kept under continuing review—which it no doubt is? Has not it become a monstrous and inhuman shambles that has to be changed and changed now?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows what I had to say about that recently. I have nothing to add to that today. On the personal circumstances that he mentioned, neither he nor I can know all the circumstances behind that tragedy. On reflection, he may think that it was unwise to raise it in that fashion.

Sir Cranley Onslow: As the British electorate clearly cannot expect Opposition Members to spell out the full horrors of the sort of centralised and federal European Union for which they want people to vote on 9 June, will my right hon. Friend consider inviting Mr. Delors to come over here and do the job for them?

The Prime Minister: The President of the Commission is welcome here in the United Kingdom at any time. I hope that when he comes, if he comes, he will spell out yet again that he believes that the fact that we are not part of the social chapter will make us a great magnet for external investment—I am sure that he is right about that.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Prime Minister recall what his party promised the British people in its last Euromanifesto? It included the promise that the Conservatives would not put value added tax on gas and electricity, saying:
We stand by that pledge; we will honour it".
Has not it become clear that the Government are incapable of honouring any pledge?

The Prime Minister: It is not remotely clear. Like every Government, we have to respond to the reality of events in the interests of the people of this country. The right hon. Lady should bear in mind some of the contradictions in what she and her colleagues have said and done. On one day they attack our tax proposals and on the next day they propose a string of new taxes. They then ask

for fresh expenditure, but the shadow Chancellor says that there is no commitment. There is no consistency whatsoever in any of their policies.

Mrs. Beckett: If that is the Prime Minister's answer to why the Government broke the promises in their last Euro-manifesto, will he explain why, at the general election in 1992, he and his party promised not to extend or increase VAT, not to increase national insurance contributions and not to impose any other taxes and charges, and even promised tax cuts year on year? Why is it that, in manifesto after manifesto, the Government make promises that they then betray?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is misquoting and misunderstanding. If she wants to talk about movements away from manifestos, she might look at the distinctions between the European socialist manifesto to which the Labour party is committed and the domestic Labour party manifesto for the European elections. She might then explain to the British people why, in this election, what it is saying domestically is not what it has agreed to internationally.

Mrs. Beckett: Did not the Government prove at the last Euro-election and general election that they will say and do anything to get elected? The people now know that after the broken promises of the Euro-election and general election campaigns. Why should anyone trust the Government ever again?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady will also know that we made it clear that we would create the right circumstances for growth, and we have; that we would bring unemployment down, and we are; that we would get interest rates down, and we have; and that we would create the conditions for sustained growth without inflation, and we have.
Only a few weeks ago, the Labour party was signing up to promises in Europe to which it dare not admit domestically in the current election. If the right hon. Lady will not admit to that, she will find that, throughout the campaign, quote after quote after quote of what the Labour party has signed up to not long ago will be brought up. The Labour party is now trying to duck, dodge and weave around those promises because it knows that the British people will not stand for its policies on Europe.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for yesterday reminding the British public yet again that we gain enormously in real sovereignty and strength in Europe by working closely, harmoniously and positively with the other member countries.

The Prime Minister: As I said last night in my speech, which I know that my hon. Friend will have read, our policy is to make a success of the European Community and to make sure that it regains the affection of people, not only in this country, but right across Europe. That is the policy of the Government, and I set out a range of ways in which we believe that that can and must be brought about. It is essential to the future well-being of the country that we are able to ensure not only that the European Union is accepted by the people but that it continues successfully for many years to come.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister will be aware that, for as long as he continues to hold firmly to the view that there will be no question of negotiation with the men of


murder in Northern Ireland for as long as they continue with violence and unless and until they renounce it permanently, he will continue to enjoy the full support of the vast majority of this House and, I believe, the majority of the country. However, is he aware of just how much the momentum for peace in Northern Ireland is now evaporating? Does he accept that it is urgent and important that the British and Irish Governments should now put forward joint proposals based on the joint declaration through the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, if the high hopes for peace which we enjoyed at Christmas are not to be killed off by the new wave of terrorism being implemented by both sides?

The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House will share the right hon. Gentleman's wish to see an end to violence. Where I would take issue with him is in his assertion that there is an evaporation of the movement toward peace in Ireland, both north and south of the border. I do not believe that that is the case, and it is not the information which comes to me.
After what has happened in recent weeks, but one question remains to be answered: when will the IRA give up violence? There never has been any justification—now, clearly and undoubtedly, there is not a single shred of justification in anyone's mind—for its barbaric murders. It is losing support on all sides and becoming increasingly isolated. We should stick with the joint declaration and pursue the discussions that we are having with the constitutional parties and with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. We should also pursue the mechanism that we have been following for the past two years, which is bringing us nearer to peace than we have been for many years.

Mr. Kynoch: Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider what would be the impact on traditional British interests were we to forgo completely the national veto in Europe, as urged by the sell-out Liberal Democrats?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is—

Mr. Skinner: It is that lot behind me.

The Prime Minister: Tempting though it is to respond to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I shall respond first to my hon. Friend.
It is inconceivable that any responsible party would wish completely to eliminate the national veto or dilute it in any way. On vital issues, it is important that that national veto remain. I shall give just one example. Had we had no national veto at Edinburgh, where we discussed future financing, under qualified majority voting we could have lost our rebate of £3 billion a year, which was so hard-fought for by my predecessor and retained in those discussions.

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ainger: The Prime Minister will be aware—it is now a matter of public record—that, on 20 April, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put a direct question to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Ainger: Is the Prime Minister aware that, on 20 April, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People instructed his civil servants to produce amendments designed to ensure that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would be talked out? Is he also aware—I am sure that he is—that, only 16 days later, the same Minister denied to the House that he gave those instructions? Will the Prime Minister now do the honourable thing and, first, apologise to the 6.5 million disabled people for the deceitful and shabby way in which they have been treated and, secondly, sack the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People for misleading the House, the disabled and the country?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the direct questions is certainly not.
The Government's record on assisting people who are disabled is very good. We have made it perfectly clear that, over the next few months, we shall consult to try to find a Bill that will achieve assistance for disabled people, but not a Bill with a cost of £17 billion. Until and unless the Opposition say that they are prepared to impose costs of £17 billion on private industry, their attitude over the Bill is utterly and totally bogus.

Mr. Allason: Tonight, the House will be asked to review the provisions of the prevention of terrorism order. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the abuse of the broadcasting ban, which is so widely circumvented by all the broadcasting media, should be reviewed so as to prevent known terrorists from appearing on television and having their voices dubbed by out-of-work actors from Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I understand the frustration that my hon. Friend feels about that matter. A number of complex matters are involved, but I will certainly discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Prentice: Why do so many people believe that foreign millionaires can queue jump their way into Britain? Can they do that because they give substantial donations to the Conservative party?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Lady quite understands the immigration rules, which are very complex. If she did, she would know that for a long time—even under the last Labour Government and I believe since 1970 or before—the immigration rules have allowed people of independent means to come to the United Kingdom. That has been the position for a very long time.

Mr. Bill Walker: During his very busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider having a wee dram to celebrate the fact that the Scotch whisky industry is now in its 500th year? Is he aware that that industry provides massive employment in Scotland, provides export earnings of £2,000 million and brings pleasure to many?

The Prime Minister: I am more amenable to the suggestion that I might have a wee dram than I am to many that I get these days, and I would be happy to take up that suggestion. I am happy to join my hon. Friend in his


congratulations to the Scotch whisky industry, which has been a huge success. It is increasing its exports of a product
which is enjoyed in every part of the world.

Mr. Bayley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: After the statement, please.

Competitiveness

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win", which we are presenting to Parliament today. The Government are also presenting to the Trade and Industry Select Committee a memorandum replying to its report on the "Competitiveness of UK Manufacturing Industry". The report is a valuable contribution to the competitiveness debate. Its analysis and conclusions have much in common with the White Paper. I am very grateful to the Committee for its work in this area.
Our prosperity as a nation depends on the wealth that we generate. Our companies must be able to compete with the best in the world. There is no simple agenda; nor is there a totally accurate snapshot at any one time of how well we are doing. We face a continually moving target. Inexorably, our competitors move on, developing new products, finding better ways of doing business, and strengthening their capabilities. In a thousand different ways, they seek continually to improve their competitiveness.
Our analysis in the White Paper is sweeping. We have addressed the principal factors of competitiveness. We have considered long-term trends. We have looked at our performance over successive economic cycles. We have addressed our strengths and our weaknesses. The White Paper includes a number of major announcements. It also refers to many continuing reviews and indicates further announcements that will be made later this year.
The heart of any analysis of competitiveness must be the macro-economy. The United Kingdom is today in a powerful position: gross domestic product is rising; unemployment continues to fall; underlying inflation is at the lowest level for a generation; manufacturing productivity is at an all-time high; interest rates are among the lowest in the Economic Community; total plant and machinery investment has risen by more than 50 per cent. since 1979; and exports are at record levels. We are thus in an excellent position to take advantage of the recovery as it takes hold in the rest of Europe. In addition, the GATT agreement will open markets further and give a boost to world trade of more than 10 per cent. over the next decade.
The White Paper considers in detail the vital contribution of educational standards and training opportunities. With permission, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will make a separate statement later today setting out a range of new initiatives to improve standards in education and outlining new plans for training and apprenticeships. The White Paper also covers a wide range of other areas.
The adequate supply of finance for business is a matter of continuing concern. Under the Treasury's industrial finance initiative, my hon. Friends the Financial Secretary and the Economic Secretary are conducting a wide-ranging review of the workings of our capital markets, savings, the flow of funds to business and the implications for taxation and other policies. Their findings will inform the Budget decisions. In the meantime, my Department will be considering ways of extending the "business angels" concept to provide greater informal investment to small

companies. The White Paper also sets out our commitment to extending the private finance initiative as a means of funding major infrastructure investment.
Businesses are naturally concerned about the late payment of debt. There is no common view about what should be done, but it is widely recognised that there needs to be a change in business culture. I can tell the House that the Government will in future require all Departments and their agencies to comply with the Confederation of British Industry prompt payment code and to set out their performance against that in their annual reports. [Interruption.]
We shall work with the business community to develop further the proposal for a British standard for prompt payment. We shall take the necessary steps to implement proposals to require public companies to state their payment policies in their directors' reports. We shall simplify court procedures for debt recovery and we shall review court systems with a view to increasing the scope of the informal small claims procedures. If there has not been a significant improvement in the next two years, we shall reconsider the case for legislation. [Interruption.]
The quality of management has a vital influence on the performance of our businesses. Our best managers are as good as any in the world, but we need to raise the average. The White Paper sets out our proposals for extending best practice. The proposals build on my Department's benchmarking challenge to trade associations. Business Links, which will be open in all parts of England by the end of next year, will be the focal point for new services, ranging from consultancy and innovation to design.
I can announce two further initiatives by my Department to improve management performance. First, we shall set up a network of regional supply offices in England to work with private and public sector purchasers to promote supply chain partnerships. [Interruption.] Secondly, we shall work with the British Standards Institution and with industry to develop BS 5750 and product certification standards further to promote continuous improvement. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Heseltine: Innovation is a key driver of competitiveness. Last year's White Paper on science, engineering and technology explained how the Government intended to direct their own substantial research and development expenditure towards competitiveness. There has been much progress since. The present White Paper builds on those changes.
The higher education funding councils will increasingly reward universities for the work that they do in partnership with industry. That will amount to a significant proportion of the relevant income from industry. The proportion of the councils' agreed total budgets used for that purpose will increase. The councils will take full account of the results of the technology foresight programme in allocating the funds between subjects. Individual academics will be rewarded for undertaking collaborative work with industry. [Interruption.] My Department will work with financial institutions and industry to help achieve a joint understanding of the importance of innovation.
We shall introduce a range of new services through Business Links to help technology transfer. New funds will be provided for innovation and technology counsellors in Business Links to provide advice and guidance to


companies on innovation. "Innovation credits" will be made available through Business Links to encourage smaller firms to discover the value of outside help by offsetting the cost for first-time users. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Would the Secretary of State forgive me? I should be much obliged if the House would now settle down. It is a long statement. [Interruption.] Order. It is a long statement. There are often complaints that not enough Members are called to ask questions after statements. That can be done only if the statement is heard in the first place.

Mr. Heseltine: Networks of local contacts will be established across the United Kingdom to make local sources of innovation support more accessible. National centres of expertise will be linked through an actively managed network. We shall also help the process of innovation by increasing the exchange of people between industry and higher education through an extension of the successful teaching company scheme.
On support for exports, my Department is more than three quarters of the way to meeting the objective that I announced last year of bringing in 100 senior export promoters from the private sector. We shall extend this initiative by helping to fund about 70 export counsellors with private sector experience to work in each of the larger Business Links.
We shall be developing a partnership with the banks to reach more potential investors and continuing our drive to encourage firms to improve their language skills. Once the Business Link organisation approaches completion at the end of next year we shall have in place the most comprehensive export support network this country has ever seen.
The United Kingdom has an exceptional record in inward and outward investment. We have attracted the lion's share of inward investment in the European Community from United States and Japanese companies over many years. The White Paper contains a package of measures to help the United Kingdom to maintain its leading position. We shall also be looking to see how we can better help companies to exploit competitive advantage through outward investment.
The quality of our communications and transport infrastructure underpins the competitiveness of our companies. We already have one of the highest levels of investment in the world in telecommunications, including fibre-optics and mobile networks. We are giving further encouragement to the development of digital broadcasting technologies. The White Paper sets out our plans to open up more of the radio spectrum for commercial use.
The future of the BBC will be dealt with in a further White Paper to be published shortly. We shall be announcing later in the year the results of our review of the restrictions on ownership of broadcasting and newspaper companies. We shall be publishing a consultative document on the Post Office and responding to the recent report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
The White Paper set out our policies across the full range of transportation. Public investment in roads, rail and public transport has nearly doubled in real terms since 1978–79. The private finance initiative is now being applied to the development of significant infrastructure projects, such as the Heathrow express, the modernisation of the west coast main line and the channel tunnel rail link.

Work is in hand on the exploitation of new technologies for the more sophisticated road traffic management systems needed to cope with tomorrow's demand.
During the 1980s, almost all the United Kingdom's principal airports and many of the smaller ones benefited from major investment to improve facilities and increase capacity. Within the European Community, only Germany has invested more per passenger. Most of this investment has come from the private sector, particularly following the privatisation of the British Airports Authority. Following work by the Civil Aviation Authority and Government Departments, we shall be consulting on the proposal that National Air Traffic Services should be established as a private sector contractor to the CAA. This will facilitate the substantial investment needed in this sector, while delivering greater management efficiency. The United Kingdom's high safety standards will be maintained through continuing regulation by the CAA's safety regulation group. In view of the increased pressure on aviation facilities in the south-east, we shall also be seeking views on the scope for developing business aviation at the Ministry of Defence airfield at Northolt.
London is one of the world's great cities and most important economic centres. We have recognised this by establishing a new Government office for London, in close partnership with public and private sector bodies, to provide concerted delivery of Government services. We welcome the steps being taken by the private sector, the Corporation of London and the Bank of England to enhance London's position as a financial centre.
The competitiveness agenda extends to all areas of the country. We have already brought together the delivery of key Government services by establishing Government offices for the regions. I have also announced the concept of regional challenge, which will enable eligible areas of England and Wales to compete for part of the money available from the European regional development fund. I can now tell the House that the first competitions in 1994 will involve total prize money of between £150 million and £200 million.
We will consider later this year how to extend the "challenge approach" to further domestic programmes. The Government are determined to make further progress on deregulation. We have just completed the first stage of the review of the 3,500 regulations affecting business and more than 500 measures have been identified for action. The Health and Safety Commission has carried out the most extensive review of health and safety legislation for 20 years. The commission has made wide-ranging recommendations. The Government welcome and accept those, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will set out the details in his statement.
A new deregulation task force has been set up to act as the focal point for further Government initiatives. Those will include proposals to set up equivalent private sector led task forces to scrutinise European legislation in conjunction with business men from other EC countries. In addition, the Government are looking at ways to simplify and improve company and insolvency law.
As part of their audit of competitiveness, the Government have looked in upon their own administration. The Efficiency Unit of the Cabinet Office will shortly be starting a review of management planning and control systems in Departments to ensure that they reflect best practice in the public and private sectors. We shall publish a White Paper on the civil service—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Heseltine: We shall publish a White Paper on the civil service setting out our conclusions on the Efficiency Unit's review of career management and succession planning for the senior civil service.
Finally, we shall evaluate the "competing for quality" initiative to see how best it can be developed in future years, including making greater use of innovative ideas and approaches from the private sector. The extensive range of Government initiatives that I have announced today will all be contained within the present public expenditure control ceilings, despite the significant extra resources that will be made available for education and training. But competitiveness goes far beyond the actions of Government. The White Paper sets out and reports on a formidable agenda for change and improvement across both the public and private sectors. It embraces the activities of all our companies and harnesses the energies of all our people. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Mr. Robin Cook: I welcome the admission by the President of the Board of Trade that Britain faces a problem of competitiveness. May I help the President by putting that problem more bluntly than he dared? Will he confirm that since 1979 Britain has moved from a £7 billion surplus in manufactured trade to a deficit of £8 billion and that since 1979, alone among the G7 countries, Britain's industrial output has barely risen? Will he confirm that since 1979, as a percentage of gross domestic product, Britain's industrial investment has almost halved? [Interruption.] If Conservative Members think that that has nothing to do with competitiveness, they do not understand the nature of the modern world.
Will the President confirm that since 1979 Britain's income per head has fallen from the European average to below the European average and the European Commission now expects growth in Britain in 1995 to be lower than in Germany, France or Italy and will he remind the House which party has been in power since 1979?
May I assure the President that he will have the total agreement of the Opposition in giving priority to restoring the competitiveness of British industry? All that we would ask first is that he agrees that the need to restore that competitiveness exposes 15 wasted years that the Government have spent in power.
May I compliment the President on the glitzy presentation of his White Paper, which puts it in the coffee table class of White Papers, but may I also warn my colleagues that those of us who have had the chance to examine briefly its contents find that the gloss rubs off easily? I have been able to find only two specific proposals from the President's own Department: an uncosted proposal for regional supply offices and an unspecified proposal to improve British Standard 5750.
Does the President recognise that it exposes the bankruptcy of his White Paper that on the day Trade Indemnity reports the biggest reported late payment of debt within British industry, he proposes to look at the issue again in two years' time?
What was the point of felling all the trees to provide a 160-page White Paper if the President did not have one new idea to put in it? How much did it cost? Was there no better way of spending the money in his Department? Will

he confirm from the last passage in his statement that the document and the entire review has not provided one extra penny for spending in his Department—a Department with a budget that is now at the bottom of Whitehall—and is that not a far more eloquent statement than the White Paper of his Government's priority for industry?
How dare the President congratulate the Government on setting up an office for London, when they will not let the people of London vote for a strategic government for London.
Will the President share with the House, as he did not in the statement, the contents of the health and safety review? Will he confirm that it states that 100 health and safety regulations—40 per cent. of the total legislation on health and safety—are to be scrapped? Why cannot the Government accept that better safety is not a burden on business but a saving to industry because it cuts the cost of injury, compensation and lost production? Competitiveness cannot be built on taking greater risks with the work force.
If the Government are really serious about addressing competitiveness, why does the White Paper not offer a single new measure to stimulate research and development? Why does it offer not one new policy to boost industrial investment? Why does it not do anything to achieve a better balance between the higher level of dividend payments and the poor level of profits ploughed back into business? Why does it not offer any plan to tackle the crisis in the defence industries or to help convert the skills and machinery in the industries to civilian production?
We are grateful to the President for producing the White Paper because it exposes how little the Government have to offer industry. It is a bankrupt statement from a Government on the verge of liquidation. It is an admission of 15 years of failure in the past and a confession that they have no policies for the future. It confirms that the only service that the Government can now provide the nation is to make way for a Government with fresh ideas, which the White Paper has so dismally failed to provide.

Mr. Heseltine: In anticipation of the intervention by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), I assumed that it would be as bad as it turned out to be. It occurred to me that it would be wholly beyond the hon. Gentleman's ability to rise to take part in any sort of serious intellectual analysis of the problems facing the country. I can say only how sharp a contrast there is between the political rubbish spoken from the Opposition Front Bench and the intellectual input of the Labour-led, all-party Select Committee that has reported to the House and tried to deal with the issue seriously.
If I had to defend the record of the 1980s, I would do so with pride, because I remember what we inherited in 1979. I know that lurking behind the hon. Gentleman's statement is a yearning to put the unions back in power, to take back into public ownership the industries that we have privatised, and to continue on Britain's relative industrial decline, which had haunted us for decades. Despite the trivialisation by the Labour party, which would not understand a debate about competitiveness even if it was published by Transport House, we now know that Britain is poised to seize an initiative in the world that has been denied us for decades.
The 1980s was the first decade since the war in which Britain's economy grew faster than that of France,


Germany and Italy. In the 1960s and 1970s, which the hon. Gentleman should remember, Britain had the slowest growth rate in the EC and the G7 countries. In the 1980s, the UK had the fastest growth in manufacturing productivity of the G7 countries. In contrast, in the 1960s and 1970s, we were at the bottom of the league. In the 1980s, for the first time in decades, we held our share of world manufactured exports after decade upon decade of decline. In the 1980s, Britain's industrial relations improved to become the best since records were first kept in this country. Britain has the highest proportion of people of working age in employment of any EC country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading!"] Yes, I have page after page of the record of the 1980s.
The reason why I can produce a track record of which we are proud is that the facts are on our side. When the hon. Member for Livingston produces his competitive White Paper, we shall find that in 15 years of opposition all that the Labour party has come up with is 15 reviews that it intends to conduct. It has no real ideas, no real proposals, and that is just as well, because it has no real prospect of power.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Perhaps we might have some order before we proceed.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on his White Paper, but on sinking the shadow spokesman's campaign before it was even launched.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the long-term competitiveness of British industry depends essentially on the education system of our country and on our schools? Will he, with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, build on the initiatives—if necessary with additional resources—undertaken in the 1980s to improve the technological education in our schools, including computer-assisted learning, technology colleges, and technology for all children up to 16, so as to ensure that all our young people, whenever they leave school, have an expertise and knowledge of the new technologies on which the future prosperity of our country will depend?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who personally played a significant role in advancing those causes in both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Education and Science as Secretary of State. I hope that he will understand if I say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be dealing with those matters, and I believe that the House will be excited by what he has to say.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that his statement and the mode of its delivery have at least given short-term job security to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? Does he further agree that small businesses should be the engine room of recovery but that his statement today has given little support to small businesses? Indeed, many of them will be very disappointed that the only action that he is taking on late payment of debt is to establish what is little more than a charter mark. Will he not at least rethink that element of his statement and introduce urgent legislation in respect of late payment of debt to small businesses?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will regret that intervention when he reads the White Paper. There are now 600,000 more small businesses than there were when the Government were elected. A recent publication of figures by Barclays shows that a net growth of small businesses has resumed after the recession. There is no doubt in the minds of small business men where their best political interests lie, and that is on the Government Benches.

Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that people will welcome this serious White Paper, which will build on the competitiveness of Great Britain which, as he said, is so essential? Will he try to build on the policies that our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor introduced in his Budget—the enterprise investment and Venture Capital Trust schemes—to provide equity and loan finance for small and medium-sized firms on acceptable terms? Is not a good deal more work needed there? Will he use his influence to carry on the good work started by the Chancellor in his recent Budget?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is very much associated with support for small companies. We place great importance on the enterprise investment scheme and we are consulting on the Venture Capital Trust scheme proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. We shall also build on the opportunities which now exist, especially by encouraging awareness among the local Business Links of potential investors—business angels—who are increasing in number. It is important to draw their existence to the attention of small businesses.

Mr. Richard Caborn: I want to raise a point about the procedure surrounding the release of the response to the Select Committee report, which unfortunately is not before the House today because it must first go to the Committee. However, it should be part of our discussion on the White Paper. Should not that response be delivered to hon. Members before they put questions on the White Paper? Otherwise, we have only half the information needed for debate. Perhaps there could be a one-hour embargo, or something of that nature, so that hon. Members can be—

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Why is the hon. Member here?

Mr. Caborn: I am trying to ensure that hon. Members are well informed. Obviously, some of them are quite ignorant of the points that I am raising.
I hope that my suggestions will be given serious consideration. Many important points are not in the White Paper, but in the response to the Select Committee report. The Committee's analysis is not dissimilar to that contained both in the White Paper and in the response to the report. However, I am concerned about some of the language used, such as "re-examine", "under review", "reviewing" and "considering".
I want to raise three points with the President of the Board of Trade. Why did he not respond to the suggestion for a training levy, which was forcefully promoted in the report? There is also no response to our suggestion on the financing of small and medium-sized businesses or to our point about hostile takeovers. The Committee said that technology transfer should be viewed as a framework of operation. Unfortunately, there is only a part response to that point. We want a full response to the points raised.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because, as I said earlier, the report for which he is responsible as Chairman of the Select Committee is very important. It attempts to analyse many of the problems seriously and, in my view, very constructively—in sharp contrast to the attitude of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).
There were few points in the Select Committee report with which the Government disagreed. There were some, but not many. In the memoranda that we published we clearly set out our reasons for any disagreements. For example, we do not believe that a training levy is the right way to proceed. It would be bureaucratic. It has been tried, but it did not find general acceptance—although we very much welcome the interest in further and better training operations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will talk about that shortly.
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman as I was not able to help him in his request that I make the White Paper available to him in advance of the rest of the House. That is the convention and I felt that I had no alternative but to stick with it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. It seems that I have to remind hon. Members that we are not in debate on the White Paper. We are questioning the statement on the White Paper made by the President of the Board of Trade. May I now have brisk questions and answers please?

Mr. Tom King: Our country's competitive position is excellent at present, and the supporting resources provided by the Department are much improved. Many excellent British companies are doing outstanding work in exports. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that many companies have not yet realised what opportunities exist overseas, and how vital those opportunities are to our balance of payments? Will he reinforce his efforts to ensure that every company in the country realises that there may be very good prospects in export markets as well?

Mr. Heseltine: I am wholly in sympathy with my right hon. Friend. Trying to achieve that result, however, is an enormous management task. We must face the challenge of establishing a Business Links network in every major town and city, setting up databases to find out exactly which companies are capable of exporting and then securing the personnel to visit, encourage and guide those companies.
We have been helped immensely by the private sector, which has now seconded nearly 80 people to my Department, and I have announced today that an additional 70 will be recruited in the provinces to reinforce those arrangements. The fact that our exports are at an all-time high, while exports to the non-EC countries are 8.5 to 9 per cent. up on a year ago, augurs extremely well for the future.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Given the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for analysis, will he tell us what estimate he has made of the effects of the measures that he has announced on either growth or productivity?

Mr. Heseltine: No. As the hon. Gentleman will know, trying to make forecasts about the result of specific inputs is something that no Government of whom I am aware have ever tried systematically to do—except those who believe in command economies, and we know what

happened to them. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given the overall view of likely growth patterns in the country's economy over the years ahead, and I have no reason to dissent from that view.
In the White Paper, we are largely discussing two issues: maintaining the macro-economic framework—which is fundamental to competitiveness—and, persistently and in detail, working away at improving the supply side of the economy.

Dr. Michael Clark: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiative in producing the White Paper. Will he concede that, although we spend a great deal of our time criticising what is wrong with our industry and our companies, many of those companies are effective, efficient and world class in terms of competitiveness? Will he ensure that his Department looks at those companies as well, analyses what they are doing right and sets out their criteria for other companies to follow?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is one of the principal thrusts of the policy that we are pursuing in working closely with British companies—particularly the best companies, which are performing a remarkable role in many fields in benchmarking down the supply chains to pass best practice out into companies that are not immediately in touch with the agencies and Government organisations within my direct influence. We are seeing a huge expansion in the spread of best practice through the trade associations, the Confederation of British Industry and the supply chain; that is clearly one of the most effective ways of improving national performance.

Mr. Peter Shore: What role does the exchange rate play in the right hon. Gentleman's analysis? Does he not rejoice in the fact that, since September 1992, we have no longer been locked into the exchange rate mechanism at DM2.95 to the pound?

Mr. Heseltine: I know that the right hon. Gentleman never ceases to make his own particular point, but he will have a much wider, more historic perspective in mind. Time and again, Britain has had the advantage of a short-term competitiveness opportunity as a result of devaluation. The problem is that—largely as a result of the Labour party's policies—we blew it by not controlling inflation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what I consider to be a very constructive package of initiatives? The Government have created the right climate for the expansion of industry: low interest rates and low inflation. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that perhaps the greatest impetus that he could give manufacturing industry would be the introduction of 100 per cent. capital allowances, as practised in many other countries of the European Community and throughout the world? Will he do that, and will he give me an assurance that he will accept an invitation to come to Macclesfield and open the new Business Link premises in the next few months?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will realise that of course any tax judgment is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, but I remember very well that we decided that it was advantageous to the wealth-creating processes to have reductions in the level of corporation tax and to remove the artificial incentives of


tax allowances as part of that package. If I remember correctly, under Lord Lawson that was the right economic decision to take. Having given industry the major advantage of lower tax rates, some now want to go back to total capital allowances, which would be to have one's cake and eat it as well. That must be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, but it is important to realise how much we have already done.
As for my hon. Friend's most generous invitation to visit Macclesfield, that would give me huge pleasure, but I am not yet able to offer a date.

Mr. Barry Jones: What is the consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper for Britain's aerospace industry, which is still the source of many skills, many jobs and a great many exports? With the Germans now coveting British Aerospace's Airbus wing technology, will the right hon. Gentleman take a strategic decision in favour of the future large aircraft, which would help British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and Shorts? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that tens of thousands of jobs depend on that decision and that, today, he could give confidence to British Aerospace and the whole industry?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises the interests of a most important industry. I share that view, and it has been my privilege as a member of a Conservative Government to help to create the European Space Agency, to sell Tornados to the Saudis, to get the European fighter aircraft programme off the ground, to launch the EH101, and to give general and continuing support to that industry to the tune of £1.5 billion since 1979. Although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's support, I can assure him that the Government need no advice on this matter.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the timely White Paper. Will he join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who this very day has succeeded in normalising our trading relationship with Malaysia despite the Labour party's efforts to damage British prospects? My right hon. Friend mentioned that he would like to improve the competitive advantage of our outward investment. Will he expand on that?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is generous in referring to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who is never satisfied with normalising relationships but is hellbent on improving them, which he is doing with remarkable success across the world. As for outward investment, we shall be looking to the export promoters who have been seconded to my Department for the purposes of encouraging exports to look for outward investment opportunities as we realise that that gives an additional competitive advantage to British companies and will lead to massive repatriation of profits in the future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How on earth does the President of the Board of Trade expect businesses large and small voluntarily to settle their debts when the Government are giving the nod and a wink to Tory Members not to settle their debts at Lloyd's?

Mr. Heseltine: The one way that British industry would find it encouraging to settle its debts is to listen to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and realise that, if anything went wrong, he could be part of a governing party.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is absolutely right to reject any silly socialist subsidies for industry, which seem to be the only policy of the Labour party? My right hon. Friend is also absolutely right to identify the late payment of debt as the biggest problem from which the small firms sector suffers. Will he bear in mind that statutory interest is not so simple as it seems, that it can sometimes work against the interests of small firms and that the idea of publicising and exposing to shame the activities of larger firms is therefore the better solution? Does my right hon. Friend—we were in government together—also recall that when the Labour party was in office, the small firms sector almost disappeared entirely?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The punitive tax regimes of the Labour party made it impossible for the small industrial sector to generate itself, and the punitive capital and wealth taxes meant that family businesses were bound to be sold into the hands of publicly quoted companies which had massive tax incentives to take them over. My hon. Friend is absolutely right also that the various legislative answers to the better payment of debts may have particularly onerous effects on small businesses which often use their creditors as part of their companies' financial package. If we look at the balance sheets of small businesses, we often find that the people who might suffer most from a rigid regime would be those very companies starting up.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the President of the Board of Trade accept that the only industry to get a substantial boost from today's announcement is the paper, printing and publishing industry? How could he take so long to say so little of substance? Looking at the full nine pages of his statement, can he tell us where the beef is?

Mr. Heseltine: I know that it is customary in the House to indulge in that sort of fatuous intervention—[interruption.] As the hon. Gentleman sits there, pregnant with a big idea, I often wonder what goes on in his mind. The only conclusion that anyone watching the performance in the House this afternoon and the antics of the Opposition could draw is that the House has lost the capability to hold any rational debate about anything that is of genuine concern to the country at large.

Dr. Keith Hampson: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on producing the first comprehensive analysis of our industrial problems and the first coherent approach to them since the Labour Government's 1975 White Paper, which was wholly unmemorable and hopelessly ineffective. There is now at least a focus which, so far as I can see, follows exactly the trend of the thinking of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). In particular, it focuses on the role of Government in helping businesses to help themselves. Above all, small companies—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I have cautioned the House a number of times this afternoon that I am not prepared to listen to statements. This is not the time for statements; it is the time for questions, and I am looking for a question from the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson).

Dr. Hampson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the central thrust of the White Paper is to ensure that small businesses which have the potential for growth are to be helped to become the powerful medium-sized companies of which we are particularly short when compared with our major rivals?

Mr. Heseltine: I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend, but one of the reasons why we are short of medium-sized businesses, which are so characteristic of, for example, the German economy, is that when the Labour Government were in power they wiped them out.

Mr. Michael Clapham: From his reading of the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the President of the Board of Trade will be aware that the United Kingdom spends less on civil research and development than any of our competitors, both in absolute terms and per capita. What precisely will his statement do to obtain more Government investment in British industry?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is right, but he does not draw the right conclusion. In terms of public expenditure, the Government spend broadly the equivalent of what equivalent countries spend—it is the private sector that spends less. A careful analysis of the private sector shows that there is nothing in the structure of the British capitalist system which makes it inevitable that that should be the case. In some industries—for example, the pharmaceutical industry—Britain spends a great deal on research and development and is in a world-class position. This is one of the subjects that my hon. Friends the Financial Secretary and Economic Secretary to the Treasury will be considering in their analysis.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that successful manufacturing businesses in the north of England will greatly welcome the White Paper, but that they will feel that the problems with which it deals are of such fundamental importance that they should not be the subject of petty party politics? Will he therefore take every possible step to bring at least a large proportion of the Opposition on board to support his proposals?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend sets me a task beyond the wildest dreams of human politicians. Anyone studying the White Paper will realise that we have deliberately tried to consider economic cycles as opposed to the tenures of any one Government. We have deliberately tried to examine the problems in the context of decades. When I came to the House today, I had not the slightest intention of turning this matter into a party political issue, but I was not so naive as to think that that would be the attitude of the Opposition, so I had a devastating response to any wholly irresponsible intervention.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why did the Government not introduce the more interesting parts of the document four years ago, when they might really have had some impact? What has changed?

Mr. Heseltine: The performance of the British economy has changed. The more the hon. Gentleman and the House examine the document, the more it will be realised that we are building on the strengths that now exist in the British economy but which simply did not exist in the early 1980s.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We now move to the second statement.

Education, Training and Employment

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the policies and plans in the White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win", for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and I are responsible.
The only sound basis for sustainable jobs is a competitive economy, and a labour market that is efficient in bringing employers and employees together and allowing them to negotiate freely, and avoids the rigidities that did so much damage in the 1960s and 1970s. That is the background to our strategy for employment set out in the White Paper, but it is far from the whole story. The further development of education and training is another important focus of the White Paper, which also announces the conclusions of a comprehensive review of health and safety regulation.
At our request, the Health and Safety Commission has carried out the most extensive review of health and safety regulation for 20 years. We are publishing the results jointly with the commission this afternoon. The commission, after extensive consultation, has made wide-ranging recommendations to simplify and modernise our legislation. They include the removal of more than 40 per cent. of the regulations that currently affect the generality of business and which, in the view of the experts, can be removed without adversely affecting health and safety conditions.
The commission's proposals also include new and better guidance on the regulations criticised for complexity, improved advice to industry—especially small businesses—on how to comply with the law, and new strategies to make the enforcement of health and safety law more consistent and effective. The Government welcome and accept the commission's recommendations and will consider with the commission and others how best to carry them into effect. In particular, we shall consider them in the context of the scrutiny of local authority enforcement, on which a report is due shortly.
We are committed to a system of health and safety that maintains high standards without imposing unnecessary burdens on business. Our system is world class, and we intend to keep it that way. Implementation of the commission's recommendations will help our efforts both to create a safer and healthier working environment and to improve business competitiveness.
I shall now deal with education and training. Making the most of all our people is fundamental to competitiveness. Good basic education is essential. So is lifetime learning. Both depend on a coherent education and training system that really motivates individuals, and delivers results to rigorous standards. That is why the national targets for education and training, endorsed by Government and promoted locally by training and enterprise councils, and in Scotland by local enterprise companies, are so important.
Our progress in recent years is striking. More of our young people are doing well at GCSE, and GCE A-level, than ever before. We have the highest graduate percentage output in Europe. More people are being trained at work. Our work force is better qualified.
But we must raise our sights still further. The White Paper announces a package of measures that builds on our existing policies and successes. We shall commit more than £300 million to the new measures over the three years to 1997–98.
The new initiatives are, first, accelerated modern apprenticeships to give vocational training to 18 and 19-year-olds entering the labour market to help them to achieve the technical and supervisory skills which are critical to their—and our—economic success. Training will be to NVQ level 3 or above and should last an average of 18 months. The Government will invest £107 million over three years. By the end of the decade, the initiative will produce 30,000 extra skilled and qualified people each year, nearly doubling the achievement at that level which is already planned through modern apprenticeships.
Secondly, there will be better careers education and guidance for young people. An extra £87 million will be made available over three years. We are adding to the depth and quality of the independent advice that young people get at key decision-making stages, particularly at ages 13, 15 and 17. Each pupil will receive a statement of their entitlement to careers education and guidance, and careers officers and teachers will get extra training.
Thirdly, there will be a training boost for small firms, which are the economic lifeblood for so many people in a modern developed economy but which can be inhibited from full-scale training programmes by their size. We therefore intend to help firms with fewer than 50 employees to train suitable individuals as trainers, ensuring that they have up-to-date skills which they in turn can pass on to others. Over three years, £63 million will be contributed by Government.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How?

Mr. Hunt: I shall explain it.
We want to strengthen standards, choice and diversity. We plan to provide more and better opportunities for 14 to 16-year-olds to take vocational courses at school, and a new general diploma for 16 to 18-year-olds to reward those who gain good GCSEs in English, maths and science, plus two others or their vocational equivalents. In addition, we will work further to strengthen standards in GCE A level and AS qualifications and their Scottish equivalents, in the new general national and Scottish vocational qualifications and in our system of national vocational and Scottish vocational qualifications.
We also plan closer partnership between education, training and employers. Over three years, £23 million will be made available to help to provide at least one week's work experience for all young people before they leave education. There will be new targets for education-business links, and new arrangements for ensuring that further education in England makes the best possible contribution to developing our skills base.
Training and enterprise councils will work more closely with the further education sector and offer particular support through a new competitiveness fund to meet key local skills needs. That will, for example, enable colleges to purchase more state-of-the-art equipment for training.
We will also have wide consultation on the practical implications of learning credits to give all young people the power to buy their own education and training from schools, colleges, employers and other recognised providers.
Credits have long been advocated by leading economic institutions, including the Confederation of Business Industry, and many individuals. We see attractions in that approach. It would be consistent with our policy of promoting choice and diversity. However, we do recognise that such a wide-ranging change in funding arrangements would require careful preparation.
We are encouraging lifetime individual learning and helping employers to make sure that their investment in training meets business needs. We shall be looking closely at individual accounts for training and at whether career development loans can be made more accessible. "Investors in People" marketing will be boosted.
Altogether, the Government are investing more than £300 million in this package of measures over the three years to 1997–98. That reflects the priority that we are giving to education and training in our drive to compete. People are the key to a successful economy, and we have to be ambitious, both as individuals and as a nation, to succeed. There is no great future for our great nation unless we remain a highly skilled, high-value-added and high-wage economy. Our whole way of life depends on that.
This is an ambitious set of proposals, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. John Prescott: Today, the House has heard two statements from the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Employment on the White Paper, which reveal that they have totally failed to understand the scale of the economic problems facing Britain's industry and are at variance not only with the facts, but with the Government's published facts.
We are promised more statements, White Papers and studies. After 15 years of economic incompetence, they offer us more and more statements. We must consider the Government's record when considering further promises from any Secretary of State belonging to this Government.
The House will welcome any statement that improves health and safety at the place of work. Does the Secretary of State agree, in accepting the recommendations of the health and safety review, that health and safety is not now a burden on business as the Government first suggested? Will he now ensure that sufficient funds are found to make health and safety regulations effective and reverse all the cuts that he has imposed on the health and safety budget over the years?
The House would welcome any statement about improvements in training and education. Indeed, we welcome them as far as they go, but they do not go far. Why do the Government accept so little in training and education for our people? The Secretary of State said in the statement:
Making the most of … our people is fundamental to competitiveness",
and that good basic education and training are "essential". He went on to say that the progress "is striking". The statement is a statement of illusion; it is not true; it is not borne out by the facts.
It seems that Opposition Members must bring home to the respective Secretaries of State the fact that the Conservatives were in office in 1979, and the record is there for all to see. I shall say something about it.
There have been 22 statements on training in this Chamber since 1979—some announced new schemes, some shut down old schemes. Sixteen training schemes have come and gone, and only two lasted more than five years. All the schemes were launched with the razzmatazz of media publicity, but were irrelevant to the skills crisis facing Britain. They are more about catching headlines than producing skills.
Does the Secretary of State not recognise that deregulation, privatisation and voluntarism have failed, and that it was a mistake to abolish 21 of the 23 training boards and their statutory training levy, which cost us one third of trade apprentices—more than 150,000?
The Secretary of State said that our progress in recent years has been "striking" and that our work force is better qualified. Is he aware that Britain has the lowest skills level of any major industrial nation and has fallen from 13th to 19th place in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development skills league, and that the United Kingdom has the worst trained and educated work force in the European Union, with skills at half the level of France and Germany and lower than those in Spain and Portugal, according to the Community's figures?
Even if the Secretary of State achieves the 150,000 modern apprenticeship places, does he accept that he is only taking us back to the level in 1979? His aim to secure 30,000 NVQ-level apprentices is a pitiful drop in the ocean compared with Germany's 600,000 apprenticeships a year. At this rate, it will be another 25 years before we catch up with the levels of Germany today.
Is it not true that employers have abdicated their responsibilities to train, and that they have ducked their obligations to the work force and to society to invest in skills? Have not they been led by a Government who have cut £1.5 billion from the employment budget since 1985, and a further 5 per cent. of the training budget this year?
In his statement this afternoon, the Secretary of State made it clear that £300 million will be available during the next three years. That is totally inadequate, and it must be seen against the £3.6 billion that has been cut from the training budget since 1989. How does he intend to finance the £1.5 billion cost of the modern apprenticeships with a reduced budget? What will he sacrifice for the new scheme? If the Government will not even maintain their own training budgets, how does he expect that, left to their own devices, private companies will keep up their investment in training?
In his reference to learning credits, does the Secretary of State really mean training vouchers? Is that a proper response to our skills crisis? Is it not a Green Shield stamp approach to the vital provision of skills, which is irrelevant to the real issue? Will the vouchers cover the full cost, or will they continue to short-change the unemployed who have been plunged into debt, like thousands of our students today?
Does the Secretary of State not see that, in every area of training, the Government have heaped failure upon failure? He refused to accept training funds from Europe and the privatised Skills Training Agency collapsed into bankruptcy, leaving training centres idle, trainers on the dole and thousands of trainees with nothing to learn and no one to teach them.
Training in this country is in its deepest and most acute crisis ever, and the White Paper will not answer the long-term training problems of this country. But there are things which the Secretary of State could do in an


emergency programme. Why does he not take back the bankrupt privatised training centres that lie empty, as in my constituency, and open them for trainers and trainees? Why does not he call upon major companies with spare training capacity to make those facilities available to others?
Finally, will the Secretary of State now recognise the desperate underfunding of training in this country? Will he return to the principle that has been successfully adopted by every country in Europe and has been advocated by the Trade and Industry Select Committee, of a statutory training levy? Britain's skills crisis requires no less.

Mr. Hunt: In many ways, there has been a competition on the Opposition Benches this afternoon—a competition to produce the most negative response to the White Paper. I think that the shadow Secretary of State for Employment has just won that competition. His was a very negative response.
On health and safety, I wish that the hon. Gentleman would continue his dialogue with the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who attacked the health and safety proposals a few moments ago. He said that they were taking greater risks with the work force, but the shadow Secretary of State for Employment knows that the proposals come from the Health and Safety Commission, on which sit representatives of the TUC. I regard what has been said as a gross slur on the TUC. I understand that the trade union representatives agreed—[Interruption.] No, I am going to continue with the point, because it is very important.
I understand that the TUC representatives agreed to the report which I, on behalf of the Government, have now accepted. To say that the 'TUC would flirt with the idea of taking greater risks with the work force is, I believe, a gross slur on the TUC, the employers and the tripartite Health and Safety Commission. I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will consider withdrawing his allegation, and join the shadow Secretary of State for Employment in welcoming any measures that ensure that a simpler form of health and safety will mean a safer system of health and safety.
I very much welcome the welcome by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for the measures that I have announced this afternoon—I did find a welcome in what he said—but I want him to rethink the background to his welcome. He made no detailed recommendations on how the new modern apprenticeship scheme should proceed.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is the Secretary of State's statement.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I have invited the shadow Secretary of State for Employment and his team to see me and put forward proposals on how we can make the greatest possible success of the new modern apprenticeship scheme, which has been welcomed by employers, the TUC and organisations throughout the United Kingdom. My door is still open, and I await their constructive proposals.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East should rethink the background against which he has given his welcome. He has continued talking down Britain. I can give precise figures for the average annual percentage growth in the European Community between 1980 and 1990—the OECD cycle. The hon. Gentleman has talked

down the achievements in the British economy—[Interruption.] I will come to the further point that he made in a moment. [Interruption.] I am giving the correct figures, which were thrown into doubt by the shadow Secretaries of State earlier. Between 1980 and 1990, growth in the United Kingdom exceeded growth in Germany, France, Italy and Belgium.
The hon. Gentleman also claimed that the UK has a low-skill, sweatshop economy with a low skills base. Not only is that incorrect, but we have managed to attract a record level of inward investment. How have we managed to attract 3,500 companies from the United States? How have we managed to attract more than one third of all the investment that has come into Europe from the rest of the world? It is because we have a world-class skilled work force.
As the hon. Gentleman made no other substantive points, may I just answer his point about the budget? He must see that £300 million against the fact that my budget will now rise from some £2.2 billion to about £2.5 billion, which I shall be investing over three years just for young people, to get modern training leading to high-quality qualifications. Those are significant steps forward, and the day will come when the hon. Gentleman will recognise that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. May I now have brisk questions from Back-Bench Members and brisk answers from the Secretary of State?

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I welcome the proposals to bring education and training much closer together, particularly careers guidance, which will be on offer to secondary pupils from the age of 11. That is a significant development. How does my right hon. Friend propose to monitor the results of what is happening? The input is important, but monitoring the output is equally important. Will he also remind the House that one reason why we lost so many apprenticeships was the high cost of paying apprentices artificially high wages compared to their fully qualified counterparts?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to look back at the history of the old, traditional apprenticeship scheme, which was built on time serving, whereas the new, modern apprenticeship system focuses on high-quality qualifications to NVQ level 3, which is equivalent to two A-levels. The old apprenticeship scheme had set, rigid minimum wages, restrictive practices and demarcation lines, which renstricted the young apprentice to one machine or one machine shop. We are now dealing with training a multi-skilled, high-opportunity work force.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I now calculate that, every year, 1.5 million independent interviews will be conducted throughout the country to help young people to make the right choices at the ages of 13, 15 and 17.

Mr. David Rendel: Will the Secretary of State back up his welcome support for lifetime learning by reducing the restrictions on training the unemployed, particularly getting rid of the 21-hour rule?

Mr. Hunt: It is important to target resources. Given that two thirds of all those who become unemployed find a job—come off the register—within six months, we must recognise that the real target must be those who have been


unemployed for a considerable time. That is why we must have checks and balances in the system, to target the most effective help on the longer-term unemployed.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed because it has one clear and positive focus—that we should invest more heavily in human capital in all the appropriate ways? Is he also aware that it is vital to do so continuously over a long period? The lead times are long and, unless the policy is sustained, it will not have the success that it deserves.

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Greville Janner: First, on the health and safety regulations, does the Secretary of State agree that it takes no great genius to bury regulations that have long been dead? We are worried about how many live ones will be interred with the bones. Will he give the House an absolute guarantee that no provisions that really protect people at work will be abolished?
Secondly, how much has it cost the public for the Secretary of State and the President to produce a document that seems to be unadulterated Tory propaganda, complete with a photograph of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Hunt: On health and safety rules, this is the first in-depth inquiry into the full range of health and safety legislation which the Health and Safety Commission has conducted for 20 years. It has spent a considerable amount of time on it, and it assures me that none of its recommendations will place health and safety in the workplace in jeopardy. We have one of the finest records in the world on health and safety, and I give the hon. and learned Gentleman my undoubted, categorical assurance that I intend to keep it that way.
On cost, I shall let the hon. and learned Gentleman have that figure. This is not a party political occasion. The White Paper was destined to be published some time ago, but, due to the tragic events that occurred, it was delayed. I hope that the document will form a foundation for further discussions on an all-party basis right across the spectrum for many months and years to come, and that it will provide a secure foundation for education and training in particular.

Mr. Peter Viggers: As the chairman of a sixth form college, I can see for myself the attraction and relevance of vocational training for the young, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the best basis for lifetime learning is a good, focused and rigorous training in reading, writing, arithmetic, history and geography?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has introduced the much welcomed proposal for the new general diploma. My hon. Friend will be aware of the targets for lifetime learning. The White Paper reveals that the National Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets, which includes some distinguished people, such as one of the leading personalities from the trade union movement, will review the targets to ensure that they are brought up to date. Those lifetime learning targets are among the most important facing the British nation at the present time.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that the statements in the document and his article about incentives to work which appeared in The Sunday Times will be regarded as an insult and an outrage by the 500 workers who are being sacked from the Beecham factory in St. Helens and whose work is being transferred to a lower-paying, non-union plant in Devon? Is it not about time that the Secretary of State insisted that, where companies sack workers simply to increase their profits, they should be responsible for paying the wages of those workers until they find jobs?
Will the Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade accept my invitation to meet some of those Beecham factory workers in Committee Room 14 tomorrow afternoon to talk about the White Paper?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has a particular constituency interest, which I share. The closure—I very much regret it and the redundancies which have occurred—took place in Merseyside where my constituency is. Just before I came into the Chamber, I received a letter from the hon. Gentleman inviting me to the meeting to which he referred. Sadly, I shall be in the midlands tomorrow. However, I ask him to make a careful note of all the points that his constituents wish to put to Secretaries of State. I will be very willing to see him and his colleagues after tomorrow's meeting has taken place.

Mr. Richard Page: As one of the few Members of the House who has completed an industrial apprenticeship, I accept and understand what my right hon. Friend is trying to achieve today. On that he is to be congratulated.
How will he disseminate the information in his statement to employers, and particularly to the youngsters who will take up the apprenticeships? Will he, for example, use trade associations—particularly the lead trade associations per industrial sector—to get the message across?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, I will. We are spearheading the new modern apprenticeship scheme in partnership with the training and enterprise councils and the industry training organisations. They are currently working up models that will form the basis of the new NVQ level 3 qualification, which is the objective of the new modern apprenticeship system.
We are getting a great deal of help from all sectors, and all parts of every sector, in the United Kingdom. Some new sectors that do not have a tradition of apprenticeship are getting very excited about the opportunities that the new modern apprenticeship scheme will offer.
We anticipate that more than 200,000 young people will participate in the new modern apprenticeship scheme at any one time. When the scheme is up and running, we anticipate that the number of those qualifying and achieving NVQ level 3 will increase from 40,000 under the scheme we have announced already to 70,000 per year. My hon. Friend is right: we have to get the message across in every possible way.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What about the kids who leave school with no qualifications and drift into crime, drugs and joyriding, as we have learnt from the television and the wireless? Does the Secretary of State not remember the old days when the National Coal Board


provided apprenticeships for electricians, fitters, blacksmiths and joiners? In those days, we turned out qualified workers by the thousands—and at less expense.

Mr. Hunt: I hope that the new modern apprenticeship scheme will give many youngsters a real opportunity, challenge and sense of pride and achievement in gaining a new modern apprenticeship. That is why I hope that we will receive co-operation from both sides of the House in ensuring that the scheme is a great success.
Turning to the problem of unemployment among young people, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, according to the figures that I announced a short time ago, unemployment fell most markedly among young males aged between 20 and 24 years. We now have one of the lowest rates of youth unemployment in Europe. Admittedly, at 15.4 per cent., it is too high; but the European average is 20.7 per cent.
The rate of unemployment among males and females aged under 25 years is 23.7 per cent. in France, 31.7 per cent. in Italy and 38.9 per cent. in Spain. The hon. Gentleman can see that we are doing extremely well in comparison with our competitors. However, we are determined to do more, and the new modern apprenticeship scheme will offer many new opportunities to young people.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: Does my right hon. Friend accept the very warm welcome that his statement has received today—particularly from the hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have a thirst for training?
Does he also accept that this country has the best job creation record in Europe and, in addition, that we have the highest percentage of our work force in employment? Does he agree that this success story can be attributed in very large measure to national vocational qualifications—the real training powerhouse in this country—which are supported by the Government?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is correct in all his facts. It must be a matter of considerable pride that a higher percentage of the working age population are in work in the UK than almost any other country in Europe. Some 70 per cent. of those aged 15 to 64 are in work. That compares favourably with other European countries—Germany with 65 per cent.; France with 60 per cent.; Italy, 56 per cent.; Ireland, 52 per cent.; and Spain, 49 per cent. People must recognise that ours is a great success story. The whole point of the White Paper is that we do not intend to rest on our achievements; there is much more to accomplish, and we intend to do that.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Secretary of State explain what his proposals will do for a city such as Nottingham, where last year more than 1,000 school leavers were unable to take advantage of the training guarantee because employers found the scheme and its resources either worthless or unworkable? How does the Secretary of State square that with the news I received today about the closure of Prospects Training, a Nottingham company with a very good record of providing training for young people? It is being forced to close not because it cannot deliver quality training, but because others can deliver it more cheaply without the quality guarantee.
What in his proposals guarantees special needs training requirements—

Madam Speaker: Order. Brisk answers and questions, now; otherwise, I will have to bring questions to a close.

Mr. Hunt: There is a great deal in the White Paper for the hon. Gentleman's area, if only he would see the positive side. The UK work force exceeds 25 million. The prospects for that work force and the competitiveness of the economy depend on our bringing forward the proposals in the White Paper. I regret any redundancies or loss of training providers anywhere, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that we are continually investing in the future—and that is inherent in the White Paper.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Both my right hon. Friends will be aware how squarely their White Papers have hit the target, judging from the carping comments of Opposition Members. Has my right hon. Friend seen the impartial commentary in The Times of today written by Professor Tim Congdon? He paints an extremely rosy picture of this country's productivity and job prospects, but also warns against excessive Government intervention in maintaining that and in making sure that the unions are kept reined in—

Madam Speaker: Order. How many more times do I have to remind the House that we are not concerned with what appears in newspapers? We are concerned with what appears in the White Paper and, indeed, with what the Secretary of State has had to say. Perhaps the Secretary of State will reply very briefly to that question and to those of any other hon. Members I might call.

Mr. Hunt: Madam Speaker, I hope that you will forgive my hon. Friend. There are so many good things to say about the economy and this White Paper that it is very difficult—

Madam Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the economy; we are discussing the Secretary of State's statement.

Mr. Hunt: There are many good things in the White Paper too, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Secretary of State tell us what he means by young people "buying skills from schools"?

Mr. Hunt: Buying skills will occur through a credit system for every school leaver aged 16 to 19 years. As the hon. Gentleman will see from the White Paper, we propose this as an idea—which we find very attractive—involving a credit with real cash value. It is a pretty significant change in funding, and that is why we will consult about it. In the meantime—

Mr. Spearing: From schools?

Mr. Hunt: Yes—a voucher. School leavers will have the opportunity of receiving a credit which will then enable them to purchase further education or training from schools, colleges, employers and other providers. I hope that that has explained the situation to the hon. Gentleman. He will find that it is set out very clearly in the White Paper.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the huge improvement in


competitiveness of British industry in the past few years, especially since the days when we were derided as the sick man of Europe under the last Labour Government, has gone hand in hand with the improvement in industrial relations, which has given us the lowest level of strikes ever? Will he especially confirm that the £31 million that will be spent on the modern apprenticeship scheme will go towards improving the rigour of the national vocational qualifications on which employers in this country depend?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, I can confirm that the £31 million will go towards improving the quality of NVQs. I also confirm that my hon. Friend is right. We now have one of the lowest levels of strikes and industrial unrest anywhere in Europe. In 1992, the United Kingdom strike rate was lower than that in Germany, France or the United States. That is a record of which we have every right to be proud.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Is the Secretary of State aware that only 30 per cent. of our 18-year-olds have qualifications equivalent to two A-levels, compared with 68 per cent. in France and more than 80 per cent. in Japan? When the Conservatives have been in power for 15 years, why are we falling so far behind our international competitors?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has made out an important case for performance tables and for the testing regime that we have introduced, as well as the core curriculum. If he looks at the foundation learning targets, he will realise that we have the type of targets that really will enable us to maintain our competitiveness in world terms. It is important that we meet those targets. The White Paper sets out the blueprint for achieving the targets that we have set ourselves.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: We shall now move on.

BILL PRESENTED

FINE DEFAULTERS (RESTRICTION OF POWER TO IMPRISON)

Dr. Lynne Jones, supported by Mr. Richard Alexander and Mr. Alex Carlile, presented a Bill to restrict the power of magistrates' courts to impose imprisonment for default of the payment of fines: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

Hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday there was a reference to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). You made your comments. Can I ask you whether the hon. Lady will give an explanation and an apology to the House about the original statement she made, that the amendments tabled were her own? Obviously they were not. Will the hon. Lady come to the House and apologise?

Madam Speaker: As I have already told the House, the matter is under consideration by me. I have heard from the hon. Lady. I am considering it now.

Statutory Instruments, &c

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

FARM AND CONSERVATION GRANT

That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1302) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Motion No. 2 is not moved. With permission, I shall put together motions Nos. 3 and 4.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

WILLS AND ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Wills and Administration Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

LITTER (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Litter (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Motion No. 5 is not moved.

Television Licences (Reduction for Poor Reception)

Mr. Charles Hendry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give television licence holders a reduction in their licence fee when it is recognised that the household is unable to enjoy good television reception.
This is a modest, simple and fair Bill, although I had no idea when I tabled it that simply to do so would instil so much fear into the BBC that the whole organisation would go out on strike. I have decided that that is a matter of such importance to my constituents and to other constituents elsewhere in the country that I would brave the picket lines to come here and put my case to the House.
I have a number of constituents whose television reception is always poor, yet, under the current rules, they have to pay the full licence fee. That is patently unfair.
Today, the BBC is filming one of my constituents, who can obtain only what the BBC accepts is a substandard picture, but when that film is shown on television, he will be one of the small group of people in this country who will not be able to watch it at all. He lives not in a wild, remote area, but in a village less than 20 miles from the centre of Manchester, with half the country's population within an hour or so's drive away. We know that, because most of them seem to come and spend every Sunday in my constituency. Therefore, we are not speaking simply about the wildest, remote parts of the country, although the problem is predominantly rural.
Television reception is also a problem in areas such as Kent. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) supports the Bill, because there are pockets in his constituency in which people cannot receive the BBC, but only Dutch television. Unfortunately, Dutch is not one of the languages that are taught in the schools of Dover. Those people can only hope, as we do, that Dutch television will show as many BBC repeats as the BBC shows here. Nevertheless, they still have to pay the full licence fee to the BBC.
In Scotland, some people cannot receive any British television services, and can receive only television services that are broadcast by satellite, either by BSkyB or other satellite television stations, watching only programmes that have not been made by the BBC, yet they also have to pay the full licence fee to the BBC, even though they do not enjoy any of the services it provides.
The irony is that many of the people who are affected by that problem live in regions that have been made famous by programmes such as "It Shouldn't Happen to a Vet", "Last of the Summer Wine" and "Peak Practice", yet they are the very people who are unable to watch their regions being represented on television.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage in his place, listening to the debate. He will be aware, from his interest in cricket, that Buxton in my constituency does not always enjoy good weather because Buxton is probably the only town in this country where a cricket match has been snowed off in June. However, it is not fair that so many of the rest of my constituents should have to see snow every time they want to watch a cricket, tennis, rugby or football match on their television sets.
The Bill is not about whether programmes are worth watching, because some people would argue that they

should pay more if they are unable to watch "EastEnders" or "Casualty" or Ben Elton or party political broadcasts, or about what the BBC does with the money it receives. It is about the service that people receive. Under the principles of the citizens charter, people should not have to pay the full cost if they receive a substandard service.
The most peculiar aspect of the current law is that paying the licence fee does not entitle us to receive a television picture—it only obliges the BBC to transmit one. It is as though paying the council tax obliged the rubbish wagons to set off from the depot in the morning but not to collect any rubbish. It is like saying that by putting a stamp on the letter one can be certain that the letter will be taken out of the letter box, but one has no say about whether it will be put through someone else's letter box or dumped in the nearest hedgerow.
The licence fee simply relates to the ownership of equipment, which enables people to receive the signal, even if there is no signal that they can receive on that equipment. People feel understandably frustrated and annoyed about the current system, and there is wide agreement on both sides of the House that that is simply wrong.
There is a further serious issue, relating to those people who are hard of hearing and who rely on the teletext service to give subtitles to programmes. Teletext is one of the first services to break up in areas of poor reception, which can deprive those people who are hard of hearing of any benefit from their televisions. Nevertheless, they have to pay the same licence fee as everyone else. I am grateful to the Deaf Broadcasting Council for the support that it is giving my Bill.
Some people say that it will be difficult to know which regions are affected, but that is not so. The BBC has already identified many of the areas with populations of more than 200 that have substandard reception. In the case of Millers Dale in my constituency, the BBC has told me that 160 people are affected, so they also have significant information already on areas of smaller population. The Department of National Heritage has published lists of affected communities in different parts of the country.
Other people will say that it is difficult to assess whether people's reception is good or bad. I accept that. The degree of reception will always be a subjective issue. However,
the principle in the Bill is that it would apply to people who receive a consistently bad picture, so it does not refer to the household where reception is distorted by atmospheric conditions or by bad weather conditions.
It would relate to permanent geographical and geological features rather than vegetation or a building blocking the signal. It would not apply if one's neighbour had allowed his hedgerow to grow too high, blocking one's television picture. It would apply when signal strength was the root of the problem.
The BBC also says that it is hard to tell whether or not a picture is substandard. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) said on television this morning, it is like a camel: one cannot describe it, but one certainly recognises it when one sees it—or, in the case of a television picture, when one does not see it.
There should certainly be no concern about the amount of money involved, as the BBC estimates that 99.4 per cent. of the population receive a satisfactory picture. This year, the licence fee will raise £1.6 billion, so a full rebate for those unable to receive a good picture would cost under £10 million. If the rebate were set at half the licence fee, the


loss of revenue to the BBC would be just one day's income. No doubt all hon. Members could suggest good ways of making that up. In fact, we might be spared a programme like "El Dorado", as well as getting a better deal—a double benefit.
The principle would be that people should have taken the steps they could reasonably be expected to take to improve their picture—for example, the provision of a good-quality aerial or, if necessary, a booster. However, it does not seem right that they should be expected to spend more than £300 on a so-called self-help kit to get a proper picture.
The principle behind the Bill is based on the fact that there are people who, day in and day out, can get only substandard television reception. In many parts of the country, the BBC has already established where the people concerned live, and the corporation already has its own definition of what is and what is not satisfactory. In this age, it is simply not acceptable that people should have to pay for a service that they are not receiving.
I fully recognise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is reviewing the whole future of the licence fee. However, that matter is not an issue under the Bill. It is bad enough to have to pay the BBC to be allowed to watch programmes broadcast by independent stations—like having to buy The Guardian in order to be able to read The Times—but it is not acceptable that people should have to pay the BBC even if they receive no satisfactory picture from anyone at all.
As I said at the outset, this is a simple Bill, with cross-party support. It would help a small number of people who, we all accept, get a raw deal at the moment. It is time to correct this anomaly.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Jonathan Evans, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Phil Gallie, Sir Russell Johnston, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Calum Macdonald, Mr. David Shaw and Mr. John Sykes.

TELEVISION LICENCES (REDUCTION FOR POOR RECEPTION)

Mr. Charles Hendry accordingly presented a Bill to give television licence holders a reduction in their licence fee when it is recognised that the household is unable to enjoy good television reception: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 June, and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is almost exactly three years since I stood at the Dispatch Box and announced the Government's intention to move towards a system of all-purpose local authorities in Scotland. In those three years, the discussion has been lively and the interest has been great. But after three consultation papers on local government and on water and sewerage, a White Paper, a Second Reading debate, almost 180 hours of debate in the Standing Committee and a two-day Report stage, we are now on the home straight of this particular marathon. This seems the right moment at which to express a word of thanks to all those—hon. Members, local authority councillors and staff, interested organisations, the general public and Scottish Office officials—who have contributed to the Bill. It is the better for their contributions.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) for so skilfully and patiently steering the Bill through its stages in the House, ably assisted by his fellow Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). This also seems an appropriate moment—dare I say it?—to go back to basics: back to the basic principles underpinning the reform, because the arguments that led every political party in Scotland to propose single-tier local government for Scotland during the 1992 general election are as valid today as they were then and as valid as when Lord Wheatley's commission acknowledged them. The reform is about accountability and effectiveness in local government. The present two-tier structure lacks accountability in the most dramatic way. The "crisscrossing of responsibilities", which Lord Wheatley rightly identified as a fundamental problem in any multi-tier structure of local government, is an insurmountable barrier to real accountability.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will real accountability apply to the right hon. Gentleman's three new water super-quangos?

Mr. Lang: I shall come to the water authorities later.
Everyone, from the Labour party to polling organisations, has found that far too many Scots are unfamiliar with what tier of local government is responsible for what service. It is little wonder that people are confused. Currently both tiers of local government are involved in a huge range of functions—conservation areas; the countryside; development control; grants to voluntary bodies; industrial and economic development; leisure and recreation; listed buildings and ancient monuments; planning; nature conservation; tourism; and urban development. In the circumstances, it is quite impossible to have a properly accountable system of local government.


And if councils are not properly accountable they lack authority and credibility. For too long, these problems have afflicted local government in Scotland.

Mr. James Wallace: Under the Bill's proposals, it will be possible in some areas to have a single-tier authority dealing with some functions, a joint board involving two authorities with other functions, and a joint board involving three authorities with yet others. That being so, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that members of the public will know where responsibility lies? Will not there be even more confusion?

Mr. Lang: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the distinction between joint boards and elected councils. People will look to the single-tier, all-purpose elected council and its members for all local services. How these are delivered—whether through joint boards, through committees or by means of other shared or customer-client arrangements—will be a matter for authorities to develop.
Under the new structure of all-purpose councils, local people will know exactly who is responsible for local services in a way that is impossible in a multi-tier structure. The absence of confusion over responsibility will put local people in a far better position to encourage councils to be responsive. It will clear the lines of accountability, and it will be a shot in the arm for local democracy in Scotland.
It will also yield for Scottish local government that other characteristic that has been denied it by the current two-tier structure—maximum effectiveness. Of course, the present regional and district councils do, by and large, discharge their functions competently, within the constraints of their structures. But they are hamstrung by being part of a two-tier system. The fact that the new councils will be responsible for all local services will ensure that those services are delivered more effectively. Bringing together, under one roof, services such as housing and social work or education and leisure and recreation will bring immense benefits to local service delivery. The positive benefits of greater co-operation between those responsible for securing services will be achieved, and the present friction between tiers of government, which is all too familiar, will disappear altogether.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How will the service of strategic planning be delivered?

Mr. Lang: Planning will be a matter for the single-tier local authorities, which will co-operate with one another in the case of planning on a broader scale.
If the new local authorities are more accountable and more effective than their predecessors, they will be more powerful. In any case, each new council will have more powers than either of its predecessors. As the sole elected council for its area, each will speak with undoubted authority for the communities that it represents. And because it will be able to co-ordinate local service delivery to an unprecedented degree each new council will have an enormous ability to act as a force for good in the area that it represents.
As a result of the Bill, these huge gains in local government are coming over the horizon for the people of Scotland. I am pleased that, thanks to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood and other hon. Members, as well as of local authorities and others, the boundaries of the new authorities should he so widely acceptable. From the start of this reform, we have made it clear that three

principles will apply to the determination of the boundaries of the new authorities. First, the new structure should not be based exclusively on either of the existing tiers of local government. Secondly, the new units need not be of uniform size but should reflect local circumstances. Thirdly, Parliament should have the final say over the boundaries of the new councils. That was the case under previous reforms, and is the case here. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has met more than two dozen delegations from different parts of the country, led by hon. Members, and I have also met hon. Members and others. In total, the House has spent more than 22 hours debating the boundaries of the new authorities. Boundaries are a serious matter, and we have taken them seriously. Significantly, despite their at times offensive rhetoric, the Opposition divided the Committee only three times on the subject of boundaries.
The result of the work that has been done over the past three years is a structure of 32 authorities. It may not be everyone's ideal structure, but it is a structure based on consent. Every one of the new authorities enjoys the support, either of existing local authorities directly affected or local Members of Parliament, or both.
With the exception of minor boundary variations enjoying local support, the boundaries of the new authorities are those that emerged following the previous reform of local government. The overall total of 32 authorities represents the midway point between the range of options canvassed in the Government's second consultation paper. The House has sought to make far fewer changes to the scheme proposed for the present reform than the dramatic changes that it wrought on the Wheatley proposals of 20 years ago.

Mr. George Robertson: I want to nail one canard immediately. The Secretary of State said in an article in Scotland on Sunday a couple of weeks ago that the boundaries were based on consent. He is now trying to make out that the fact that there were only a minimum number of Divisions in Committee on boundaries showed that there was popular support for the proposals. We are opposed root and branch to the redrawing of the Scottish council map on a party political basis, which is what the Government have done. However, to take up the time of the House and the Committee with hours and hours of voting on that map would not be productive. The Bill and the boundaries will die. The issues, not simply the Government's gerrymandered lines, must be brought to the attention of the Scottish public.

Mr. Lang: We are seeing a change of policy from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). He was happy to waste the time of the Committee by talking and voting on a range of other matters. The fact is that most Labour Members are content with the local boundaries for their areas—[Interruption.] Yes they are—perhaps they have not been saying to the hon. Member for Hamilton what they have been saying to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and me. If the Labour party were as opposed to the proposals as it pretends to be, it would have divided the Committee. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There is now too much noise, to the point where I cannot hear what the Secretary of State is saying. Interventions are one thing, but repeated sedentary commentaries are another.

Mr. Lang: The structure that we have is sensible, balanced and durable. It is the right structure for Scottish local government for the 21st century. Of course, there are those who do not support the structure or have complaints about particular parts of it—that is inevitable in such a complex exercise. But I believe that now is the time to draw the line under the consideration of boundaries. The Government believe that the structure that we have now is the right one and are not contemplating further changes to it.
We also believe that the structure will yield continuing savings in the years ahead. We have made it clear throughout the reform that costs are only one part—admittedly an important part—of it. What matters most is obtaining the right structure of local government. It is therefore particularly pleasing that the reform will yield savings over the longer term. Of course, there will be transitional costs, but they will be a price worth paying for longer-term savings and a better, more durable structure of local government.
The structure that we have settled on will comprise 32 authorities, compared with our original proposals for 28. All four additional authorities are the result of proposals made by Opposition Members and accepted by the Government. That will, of course, have implications for the costs of reform and for the savings. We now estimate that the short-term costs will be up to £5 million less than was estimated on Report, at a ceiling of about £190 million, while the consequential long-term savings will also be a little lower, at up to £52 million a year. That is still a saving of £1 million a week, and the savings will continue in the long term.
It is on the subject of costs that the Opposition have got themselves into a terrible mess. In November, the Scottish Labour party published a briefing paper that stated that local government reorganisation would cost £200 million. Three weeks later, the hon. Member for Hamilton said that local government reform would cost at least £500 million. By March, the figure had risen to £720 million. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said that his own Fife council tax payers would face huge increases in their bills to pay for local government reform. He said that a band D council tar( would rise from £621 to £1,061 in Dunfermline and from £664 to £1,094 in Kircaldy—and all that despite the fact that Labour-controlled Fife region, where I understand the hon. Gentleman learned what he knows about such matters, has stated that a single-tier Fife authority will produce savings of almost £5 million per annum.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State make available to professionals such as David Chynoweth—not politicians, but the professionals who conducted the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities report—the background working and evidence on which his figures are based? Will the Scottish Office workings be made available to COSLA? Yes or no?

Mr. Lang: Those figures have been considered extensively in Committee. The Touche Ross report has been published, discussed and revised in the light of input from COSLA and others. The combined estimates of all the local authorities—which have shown estimated savings for their own areas—added to the Touche Ross report and

the fact that we are halving the total number of authorities in Scotland, underline the probability that the figures are broadly accurate.
Up and down the country, local authorities have done detailed work on how a single-tier structure will produce savings. From Highland region to Cunninghame district and from Dundee city to the Borders, local authorities have established clearly that a single-tier structure will produce savings. Of course, the final figures will depend on decisions to be taken by the new councils. But what is clear today is that the Opposition have been flying blind on the issue and indulging in plain old-fashioned scaremongering.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Does the Secretary of State accept that he is making a fool of himself in trying to say that the figures of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy will not be properly challenged by the Government? The figures are being dismissed as though they have been done on the back of a cigarette packet. They have not been challenged by the Government, who have not refuted the figures in the Committee or in the House.

Mr. Lang: As I have said already, of course the CIPFA figures are taken into account. But the figures have been gone over in great detail. We have used outside professional consultants and published the figures. Local authorities have commissioned studies by consultants that sustain the general trend of the figures. The Opposition will not accept the figures simply because they do not suit their case.
A major part of the Bill involves the restructuring of water and sewerage services in Scotland. From the time of the first consultation paper in 1991, the Government have made no secret of the fact that they expected that the provision of water and sewerage services would best be handled by organisations separate from the new unitary authorities. The scare-a-day Labour party immediately claimed that we were hellbent on privatisation. We said that we were looking for a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem, and that we meant what we said. We considered a range of options, including privatisation, and rejected them. We settled finally on three new publicly owned water authorities. Water and sewerage services are being restructured within the public sector.
The new structure will produce two key benefits. It will make maximum use of existing resources through economies of scale and it will deliver the necessary new resources for investment on the best terms possible. The result will be lower prices for consumers of water and sewerage services than would be possible if the present structure were retained.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I want to explain to the Secretary of State why we doubt his commitment not to privatise. While the Secretary of State says that he is veering away from privatising water, the President of the Board of Trade apparently wants to privatise the Royal Mail. Does the Secretary of State believe that privatisation of the Royal Mail is any more popular than the attempt to steal Scotland's water?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me away from the subject of the Bill. I shall resist the temptation to respond as I should be rapidly called to order if I tried to do so.
The new structure will also have within it a clear focus of accountability in the shape of the new customer councils. For the first time, consumers of water and sewerage services in Scotland will have a powerful watchdog working on their behalf, with the sole objective of ensuring that the new water and sewerage authorities are as consumer friendly as possible.
It has taken us three years to arrive at the new structure for water and sewerage services in Scotland. It will be several years before the new authorities are fully up and running. They are the Government's solution to the problem; they are a long-term, durable solution and I hope that in future councillors will play their part in helping to secure the efficient delivery of water and sewerage services by serving on the new authorities and the watchdog consumer councils.
The Bill has posed all sorts of difficulties—for the Labour party, of course. After all, the Opposition were in the vanguard of the calls for local government reform in Scotland—not that the hon. Member for Hamilton was aware of that when he embarked on his misplaced campaign of opposition to the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State addressed the same annual conference of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in March. My right hon. and learned Friend reminded the conference of the Labour party's commitment to single-tier local authorities; and to a radical vision of local government in Scotland spelt out in its policy document on the subject. He reminded the conference of Labour's vision
of
much additional service development in the future taking place through partnership or contractual arrangements with other agencies. Local authorities should be able to develop their enabling role,
Labour claimed,
frequently acting as the commissioning agency rather than the direct provider of services.
That and other commendable statements included in my
right hon. and learned Friend's speech so confused the hon. Member for Hamilton that he set off on a desperate search to find the policy document in question, but his search was in vain.
In desperation, he wrote to the Minister of State four weeks after the original speech to ask for the precise source of the quotations that he had used. Happily, to enable the hon. Gentleman to obtain a copy of the document, my right hon. and learned Friend suggested that he write to Mr. Jack McConnell at the Scottish Labour party, Keir Hardie house, 1 Lynedococh place, Glasgow: telephone number 041 332 8946; fax 041 331 2566. In case he has not had the time to so, I have a copy here which I shall willingly lend to the hon. Gentleman after the debate.
Of course the hon. Member for Hamilton must be surprised that the Bill has got this far. After all, he took personal charge of the campaign to persuade Conservative Members to vote down the Government's proposals. It was a complete and total failure.
If we are to believe the hon. Gentleman, the House's consideration of the Bill has been an uninterrupted succession of parliamentary triumphs for the Opposition. In the Municipal Journal of 29 April, he listed 13 concessions supposedly wrung from the Government by the Opposition—it might seem impressive, but on closer inspection the 13 so-called concessions are not what quite what they are said to be. Let me list some of them.
First,

denominational school catchment areas to be protected by the Secretary of State's veto
— they always were; nothing has changed.
Secondly,
Scottish police boards to be made up solely of local councillors
— they always were; nothing has changed.
Thirdly,
names of present fire brigades to be retained
— that is a devastating one, but it involved no change to the Bill. Perhaps it explains the headline in The Herald of 1 November:
Labour to set fire burning under Tory MPs".
Fourthly,
Cash from property disposal to go to new councils and not to the Treasury
— it always did; nothing has changed.
Concessions five and six:
Water disconnection ban in Scotland to be specifically in statute for the first time
and,
Water disconnections to be outlawed".
In other words, two of the so-called concessions claimed by the hon. Gentleman are one and the same and were simply a statement of unchanged Government policy. Nothing has changed.
As Marlowe might have put it:
Is it not passing grave to be a King,
And ride in triumph through Persepolis? 
It has been quite an odyssey since that June day three years ago when we first published proposals for single-tier local government in Scotland. It was to be the reform that never was. First, it was to be the reform that was Treasury driven; then it was the reform that the Treasury would veto. It was to be the reform that would be destroyed by rebel English MPs—the reform would be wrecked in Parliament. Here we are on Third reading, however, our plans firmly on time and on track. The reason why they are on track is that the arguments in favour of all-purpose authorities are compelling. The strength of the arguments was recognised by the Wheatley commission, by the Stodart committee and even by the Labour party.
The case for single-tier local government was made before the last restructuring and has continued to be made since. The case for single-tier councils has proved so persistent and persuasive throughout the past two decades that reform has been inevitable. If there was a strong case for all-purpose authorities before—when, as one commentator put it—the
dominance of municipal provision was unquestioned",
there is an overwhelming case now that local government has changed.
Now the emphasis is on the strategic role of local authorities rather than on the role of providing services directly at their own hand. As the Labour party's own policy document urges and as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) once put it,
To achieve the best and not just the basic public services, we must modernise and transform our social and economic fabric by creating new partnerships between public and private sectors.
This reform of local government is far reaching.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang: No. I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman.
The reform is designed to make sure that our councils reflect the 21st century and not the 1960s. It is based on the simple but compelling premise that one local authority in


each area should be responsible for all local services. It is designed to restore diversity to the structure of local government and to restore vibrancy to our local councils.
Under this reform, each local community in Scotland will be represented by a single strong council. Councils will be in harmony with their communities, not out of tune. There will be city councils for our cities and rural councils for rural areas—a new, stronger local democracy. That is what the people of Scotland want and in just 677 days from now, that is what they will have.

Mr. George Robertson: I shall first refer to the regrettable and perfectly understandable absence of Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), whose wife died this weekend. On behalf of all my colleagues, I express the deepest sympathy for the hon. Gentleman in his bereavement.
Let me make one first and obvious comment as we start the Third Reading debate. The Bill is not a reform. On the contrary, it represents a partisan dismembering of Scottish local government structures which have lasted, endured and served Scotland well for the past 20 years. It is not a rationalisation of the two tiers of local government for more efficient, effective local councils. Instead, it is a brutally cynical exercise, creating small, unviable councils leading, as night follows day, to the bulk of the decisions being taken by anonymous joint boards dominated by the fiat of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Bill is not a means of saving public money by eliminating one level of local government. Instead, it is a messy, ill-thought-out, divisive and politically corrupt exercise which will be enormously expensive and which will deliver no savings to the taxpayer. It is not a reorganisation of Scotland's local democratic structures, which, if it had taken place in the right circumstances, might have enhanced the delivery of services and revitalised decision-making at a local level. Instead, it is a weaselly redrawing of the map of Scottish local government to the perceived advantage of the Tory party in future local and parliamentary elections.
It is not a measure based on any independent study or on principles of what is good for Scotland. It is not based on consensus or review or genuine consultation. Instead, and sadly for Scotland, as for democracy itself and for the vitality and effectiveness of local government, it is rooted in chicanery built on malice, long-term Tory electoral failure in Scotland and constructed on a bed of obsessive centralisation. For all those reasons, it is doomed and it deserves to be doomed.
Yesterday, in a bizarre theatrical event held at the Scottish exhibition centre in Glasgow, the Secretary of State launched the Tory Euro-campaign, complete with an audience that applauded the Secretary of State's every word. The Secretary of State implies that people just turned up—they just happened to the passing the SEC on a sunny Monday morning at 9.30, wandered in to hear an amazingly revitalising discussion and applauded every word from the Secretary of State for Scotland. That was quite an achievement, given the number of supporters that the Secretary of State still has in Scotland.
I was interested in one of the things that the Secretary of State said, which undoubtedly got applause from the hand-picked audience:
There has been a clear indication that the people of Scotland, like the people of the rest of Britain, are too worried about the centralisation process of Europe, about Europe playing too dominant a part in our lives.
It would appear that the Secretary of State for Scotland, that born-again Euro-sceptic, is too worried about the centralisation process in Europe. The Bill centralises, in his own hands and those of the faceless joint boards and quangos, practically every service that is delivered by local government: education, social work, transport, police, fire, trading standards, regional chemists, regional analysts—even children's hearings reporters—and, most importantly, in three super-quangos directly responsible to him, Scotland's water. What worries and concerns the people of Scotland is not the ghouls and ghosties that the Secretary of State dreams about in Brussels, and which he proclaims in the empty halls of the Scottish exhibition centre in Glasgow, but his Edinburgh centralisation.
Consideration of the Bill in the House of Commons is coming to an end, but it still has quite a long way to go before the Secretary of State's new model of emasculated, gerrymandered local government is in place in Scotland. The Government have lost the argument at every single stage. There is no more convincing, unavoidable evidence of that than the miserable 13.7 per cent. of the Scottish vote that the Conservative party got in the regional elections only three weeks ago. Who would have thought, a generation ago, when the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party had a majority of the Scottish electorate, that the Conservative party could sink so low as to come barely above the election campaign record of Screaming Lord Sutch? Fewer than 14 Scottish people in every 100 now support the party that pretends to have the power and control over Scotland today.
The Government still have the trappings of power in Scotland—the cars, civil servants, glossy pamphlets, big launches and big offices and buildings—but with 86.3 per cent. of the people of Scotland against them, Ministers are left with all the vain credibility of the old eastern European apparatchiks. That is what they are. They are in office, but they have no authority. They strut around the stage of Scottish politics, but the emperor has no clothes. They still have the power, and they draw more and more of it to the centre and into their own hands as they chip away at local democracy, but, without public consent and support, they are corrupting that power, and the wise and intelligent people of Scotland will never forgive them for that.
Of course, the Bill has not escaped undamaged. The Government were forced to abandon their clear, undoubted intention immediately and fully to privatise water in Scotland on the English model.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): indicated dissent.

Mr. Robertson: There is no doubt that that was the Government's intention, and some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who, with theatrical affectation, shook his head at that point, wanted that. They are ideologically committed to it, but they were forced by the pressure of public opinion to back away from that.

Mr. Stewart: Prove it.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member for Eastwood, heckling from a sedentary position, says, "Prove it." Last week, I pointed to the fact that a mere handful of lines are used in the Government's consultative document to describe the option that they eventually chose, but 250 lines are devoted to describing the privatisation option and its attraction. That, combined with what they did in England and Wales, and what the Prime Minister blew the gaff on at the Dispatch Box, is as good a proof as the people of Scotland need. If the hon. Gentleman wants to question that, I refer him to the statistic that should haunt him and every other Conservative Member—13.7 per cent. of the people of Scotland support them and 86 per cent. are against them.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman was in Committee and will be aware of my views on privatisation. I am bitterly disappointed, because I happen to believe my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench when they tell me that they are not going to privatise. I personally want privatisation.

Mr. Robertson: At least the hon. Gentleman is honest in declaring his objective. Would that other people had the same honesty in declaring their private ambitions before the force of public opinion in Scotland turned them away from what we know was their intention.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Surely this is old hat. Surely we have heard it all before in Committee. Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went out to consultation, the people of Scotland came back and suggested that they did not want privatisation, and to his credit my right hon. Friend listened and acted?

Mr. Robertson: If the Government were capable of listening to the people in the way in which the hon. Gentleman would have us believe, they would listen to the people of Scotland who say that they do not want the Bill and would take it away and rethink it, or better still abandon it completely.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has counted the lines in the consultation document on water and drawn a conclusion. In the Labour party manifesto of- 1992, there were 15 lines on law and order. Am I therefore entitled to draw the same conclusion about the Labour party's commitment to law and order?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is vice-chairman of the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland—a position that he has held for precisely the period that it has taken the support for the Conservative party to go down from 30 per cent. to 13 per cent. Having burnt his fingers in that spectacular way, he might at least have thought up some better lines than that. The comparison is between the 15 and the 200-odd lines, but the evidence is not in what I say. It is not based on what the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. It is in the figure of 86 per cent. of the Scottish people who voted against the Conservatives three weeks ago in the regional elections. That is the proof. They simply do not believe the Conservative party, and they have every right not to.
In Committee, the Government were obliged—originally, they did not want to, and said that they did not have to and that it was superfluous—to put the illegality of water disconnections in Scotland on the face of the Bill. When that matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for

Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), the hon. Member for Dumfries said that it was absolutely unnecessary and that there was no need to put it in the Bill, because it was in the Water (Scotland) Act 1980.
The reality is that the Government came back and put it in, because they needed to, in one further vain attempt to persuade the people of Scotland that their ambition, which they still harbour, was not to be realised immediately. They were forced to endure the record-breaking Committee, from which the Secretary of State for Scotland had scuttled away at the beginning, right up to the humiliation of the regional elections. That is one of the things that I said on Second Reading. The regional elections would provide a forum, a referendum, on the Government's proposals. If the Government are interested in the views of the Scottish people, let them learn the lesson of the elections. In Committee, they had to abandon the wildest gerrymandering proposals in the Bill—the amputation of Berwickshire from the Borders and the ludicrous Balerno corridor that they proposed between the Lothians—and, of course, their timetable for the unwanted reorganisation is now a complete shambles.
The Bill simply cannot receive its Royal Assent until October or November of this year, which will leave only six months until the proposed shadow elections in April of next year. Of course, Ministers can ignore wholesale public hostility to the Bill and reorganisation. They can—they are daft enough, suicidal enough and idiotic enough—simply fly in the face of the electoral humiliation that they have just experienced and press on regardless.
The Government can, if they want, use the draconian power conferred on the Secretary of State in schedule 2 —one of the many draconian powers contained in the Bill —to draw in secret, on the back of some used Tory party leaflets, the new ward boundaries on which the elections are likely to be fought. They can bring those proposals to the House of Commons for a one-and-a-half hour debate, although I promise that they will be given a rough ride if they try such tactics. They can do all that because they have the technical powers, even if they do not have the consent of the people of Scotland.
If the Government are unwise and suicidal enough to do those things, however, they will deliver this reorganisation only at the expense of devastation of vital services for the most vulnerable people, and at huge cost in the disruption and uncertainty caused to business and commerce across Scotland.
Yesterday, at a press conference, I sat beside the chairman of Glasgow chamber of commerce. In measured tones, he told the assembled press, "Glasgow chamber of commerce is still not persuaded that this reorganisation is necessary." Ministers should take careful note of that declaration: it was made in public by someone who is intimately connected with business in the west of Scotland and who represents the largest group of business people in that area.
There will be disruption to special needs education, community care, transport and strategic planning. All that disruption is predictable: people with no political partisan interest have drawn it to the attention of the House. The timetable for the reorganisation is in ruins, not because of a lack of co-operation on the part of Scottish councils but as a result of the incompetence, slipperiness and arrogance of Scottish Office Ministers.
In The Guardian on 7 May, Mr. Martin Kettle—a distinguished journalist and an outsider viewing the Bill perhaps for the first time—had this to say:
the carving up of Scotland's local councils in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill is one of the most disgraceful pieces of one-party political arrogance in modern times.
He was spot on. We have spread the same message throughout Scotland, and the pitiful 13.7 per cent. of votes obtained by the party of government shows that we have succeeded in getting it through to the people.
The Bill, like the reorganisation that it promises—indeed, threatens—is flawed at its very heart. The atomisation of Scotland's local government set-up into a patchwork of some large, very many tiny, all-purpose and in many instances unviable councils will be an extremely expensive, hugely unpopular and unsuccessful folly. If they notice it at all, the history books will call it Lang's folly. Perhaps it will be the Secretary of State's farewell shot as he takes off to lead the English Conservative party, as he is widely tipped to do. If he can do for it what he has done to the Tory party in Scotland, he will do a great service to the British people.
Three hundred thousand employees of Scotland's councils are about to be thrown into an unemployment limbo, with only European law—the acquired rights directive—to help them. As that European legislation helps them, it will also make a mockery of the Government's figure for savings, which seems to derive entirely from the idea of sacking people from their jobs in local government. Today, the House has yet again been faced with brand-new figures—brand-new revisions of the previous totals, which we were told represented the actual savings and costs of local government. We are never given the background information and calculations and the Secretary of State repeatedly refuses to give detailed answers to the detailed points in letters sent to him.
The services expertly delivered by people in local government will be thrown into the turmoil of a transition so ill-thought-out and lacking in popular support that every facet of Scottish life will be affected and damaged. It will be remembered that it was this Conservative Government who, in Scotland, invented and pursued the poll tax. Sensible people thought that the Government might have learnt from that profligate fiasco, but, as the Bill shows, they seem to learn very little from such expensive disasters.
The Bill deserves only one fate: to be abandoned now. Privately—secretly—Ministers and Back Benchers would love to do that. It has no future; it will be swept away with the Labour victory that the local election results show to be inevitable now. If it is remembered at all, it will be remembered for one thing only—as one more spectacular stupidity that contributed to the demise of the Scottish Conservative party. In that one respect, it will have made its contribution to the good of Scotland. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given you and the Clerk notice of this point.
I hope that I do not have a vindictive record in the House, but I feel that a matter of principle is involved in deciding whether those who are not fully fledged civil

servants—however considerable and malign their influence on the Bill may be—should sit in the Box. Will you raise with Madam Speaker the question of those who are not fully fledged civil servants in the Scottish Office sitting in the Box?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not aware that the occupant of the Chair has ever recognised the existence of those who occupy what is usually called the Officials' Box. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me warning of his point of order; I shall certainly ensure that the matter is taken up with Madam Speaker, but I know from what he has said that he does not expect me to take it further at this stage.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I shall be brief, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
The day after the publication of the White Paper that started this whole process, The Press and Journal carried the banner headline "Aberdeen achieves goal". Following the conclusion of the Bill's Commons stages tonight, that goal will take an important step nearer to reality.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State observed, as the Bill nears the end of its stages it is appropriate for us to look back. I think we can safely say that we have enjoyed—if that is the right word—an Opposition Supply day, a Grand Committee debate in Edinburgh, a debate on the Gracious Speech, a Second Reading debate and marathon Committee and Report stages before arriving at Third Reading. During all those hours of debate, Conservative Members have become used to hearing Opposition Members quote the words of various councillors and officials in an attempt to gain votes against my right hon. Friend's proposals from different parts of Scotland.
In Committee—thanks to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—we all became experts on what virtually all his constituents were thinking, and got to know them all virtually by name. We became very used to hearing from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the various letters and phone calls that he had received from all over Scotland. Throughout his tour of the disgruntled of Scotland, however, we never arrived at Aberdeen. That town was never prayed in aid by Opposition Members as they searched for one-liners to quote, looked for scare stories to run and predicted doom, gloom, rebellion and chaos. It must irk the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that their colleagues in Aberdeen never once gave them a sound bite during all those hours of debate.
Why is that? Could it possibly be because every political group in Abderdeen district council, on the day of the White Paper's publication, fell over itself to support a single-tier Aberdeen? Could it possibly be because the Labour group, responding to the White Paper last year, said:
In short, local government in Aberdeen could be improved by re-establishing the City as a unitary authority. The Council argues that this would promote a more efficient, acountable, economical and responsive local administration and service delivery"?
Before Opposition Members shout "All under a Scottish Assembly", I shall tell them that, in the council's entire response, the words "Scottish Assembly" do not appear at all.
Or could it possibly be that the Labour party in Aberdeen took to heart an editorial in The Press and Journal on 19 August last year? It said:
The clearest signal to the electorate today that Aberdeen Labour councillors have at least some regard for the welfare of their city would be a vote backing single-tierdom that they have sought for so long.
Or would that require backbone, commonsense and independence of spirit that seem in desperately short supply in Labour local-government cliques?

Mr. Wallace: I seem to recall that, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) was very much against the inclusion of Westhill in Aberdeenshire as opposed to Aberdeen. Is he now satisfied with the Aberdeen single-tier authority as presently constituted?

Mr. Robertson: I am absolutely in favour of it: I voted for it in Committee. Or could it possibly be that everyone who cares about local democracy in Aberdeen all agreed with Labour's councillor, Jean McFadden, when she identified that the real threat to local government in Scotland would come in the form of a Scottish Assembly? Writing in the Glasgow Herald, she said:
I think we have to be very much on our guard here. There may well be a tendency for the Scottish parliament to suck up power from below.
From whatever angle it is approached, the message from Aberdeen is clear. The people of Aberdeen, the politicians in Aberdeen and the business community in Aberdeen all want the Bill.
It is an appropriate time to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to other of my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that the challenge for us on this side of the House over the summer, into the autumn and on to the shadow authority elections is to ensure that, elsewhere in Scotland, the reforms and the plans are as clearly understood by the people of Scotland as they are in the granite city, because the message from Aberdeen—[Interruption.] The message from Aberdeen is that, when the proposals are understood, when the scares give way to facts, the people respond and they are enthusiastic.

Mr. Connarty: Moving on from the boundaries, will the hon. Gentleman cite one example of a councillor in the city of Aberdeen, Labour or otherwise, who supports the proposals for water, for the police or for any of the other services?

Mr. Robertson: In supporting the concept and supporting the plans that my right hon. Friend is clearly setting out, of course they support the plans in their entirety. They have not selected one aspect of the plan—as the hon. Gentleman has implied—and said that they support one thing but not anything else. They accept a single-tier Aberdeen as the best way to provide services for the people of Aberdeen and all that that entails.
The hon. Member for Hamilton has made much of the local election results on 5 May. Indeed, many Opposition Members have done that. Again, interestingly, they have not mentioned the results in Aberdeen. Perhaps that is because in my constituency all Conservative regional councillors in the city—John Porter, Jack Dempsey, Joy Gordon and Tom Mason—campaigned hard for a single-tier local authority. They all put that at the centre of their appeal,and all won. Their election address made that very clear. They were all handsomely returned and, indeed, in one of the divisions in which the hon. Member for

Hamilton came to Aberdeen on a bank holiday and campaigned hard, we increased our vote and our majority. So I say to my hon. Friends, "Come the general election, invite the hon. Gentleman along: he will do wonders for your vote."
I am not for a moment belittling or criticising the many fine Conservative councillors who lost on 5 May, or the many outstanding candidates who never made it. However, I am told constantly by Opposition Members to listen to the people and to learn a lesson from 5 May. The lesson that I take from my constituency is one from which my party and the whole of Scotland can learn: from now to the shadow authority elections in April, we must challenge head-on every scare, every misrepresentation, every half-truth and every untruth. In doing so, we shall have nothing to fear.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to challenge them because he spends all his time making them up himself.

Mr. Robertson: One of Scotland's national newspapers said today that the debate marked the end. How wrong it is. The debate marks only the beginning of the end of round one. In round two, the debate will move away from this place, as we on this side take to the Scottish people my right hon. Friend's vision for local government in Scotland. It is a new era in the affairs of local government —strong, accountable, powerful unitary authorities—yet, at the same time, councils, by their very nature, will be sensitive to local needs and responsive to local requirements.
In the run-up to April, we shall take every opportunity to remind our fellow Scots that that is in stark contrast to what is on offer from each of the Opposition parties. They offer an assembly in Edinburgh which would plunder the powers of local councils and take them to Edinburgh, thus denuding councils and town halls up and down Scotland of their rights and responsibilities and centralising them on Calton Hill. They offer to take decision-making away from the people rather than empowering the people through one councillor and one council.
That is the choice facing the Scottish people in April. For us, the shadow authority elections start the day after the European campaign ends. We shall campaign hard for the measures in the Bill, for the councils that it will create and for the new partnership in local government that will result. I have no doubt that, when we do that and take our message to the Scottish people, they, in turn, will respond.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) will forgive me if I do not follow what he said about Aberdeen. I can only say as an Aberdonian that it is certainly not my conclusion that the people of Aberdeen are flocking in great numbers to support the Conservative party. If they are doing that, as recently as three weeks ago there was precious little evidence of it. There is precious little evidence, too, that there is any support for the Bill in Scotland. It has been universally condemned. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which the Secretary of State did not seem to like recognising, was opposed to the Bill. Individual local authorities were


opposed to it. Individual councillors, irrespective of their party, were opposed to it. But, most important, the people of Scotland were opposed to it.
The Secretary of State said that he was going "back to basics" and he said that there were three basic principles on which the reform—he calls it reform—or the reorganisation was founded. He went on to tell us what those three principles were and it seemed that they were mechanisms only, designed to be convenient for the Conservative party and not for any other purpose. I shall give him three principles on which any reform ought to have been founded: first, to provide the best arrangements for representing the people and the communities, which they, not the Government, recognise; secondly, to provide the best arrangements for democratic control over the local bureaucracy; and, thirdly, to provide the best arrangements for cost-effective and efficient delivery of services.
None of those principles is contained in the Bill, which, in fact, is a most unprincipled measure, reflecting an unprincipled Government who have devised and drafted it. What principle drove the Government to drafting the Bill? There is no principle at all. It was designed to facilitate a Conservative party that has all but passed out of Scottish political and public life.
Of course, as they see it, there is a need for success, somewhere, anywhere, by creating unrepresentative councils out of places which often have nothing in common. All hon. Members would be able to tell the House of some eccentricity or madness in their area that has been dreamt up by the demented hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). It is his fault that we have such a situation on our hands. It is his fault that it is happening. He is kowtowing to the chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland, Michael Hirst. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Michael Hirst".] Yes, Sir Michael Hirst. In fact, I am quite sure that it would be a good idea if the council at East Dunbartonshire was renamed Hirst. That would be an appropriate name. Sir Michael, unelectable and unelected, has determined what should happen in the reorganisation. Some of us find such an apparatchik an unacceptable influence, but altogether consistent with what is going on nowadays in the Conservative party in Scotland.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The last time the extraordinary exercise of local government reorganisation was undertaken, Fife regional council did not add one hen or chicken to its population or alter its responsibilities in any way. It nevertheless increased the membership of its police from 16,000 to 18,000 and that of all other services by three. A socialist organisation did that: will it do the same this time?

Mr. Hogg: I agree that Fife regional council, like most in Scotland, is a socialist council.
There is further evidence of gerrymandering in my area. There is no consent for the measure among the political parties—including the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Tory party and even Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Scottish National party—in so far as it has a view on anything—and certainly no consent among the ordinary people who have petitioned the Government, written letters, signed postcards of protest and voted against Tory candidates in local elections. However, it all adds up to nothing because this authoritarian Government are determined to push through

this measure. We have arrived at a new slogan for the Tory party. Nowadays, it is "Whitehall, not town hall", which is the very opposite of what Tories said once upon a time.
Cumbernauld and Kilsyth has historical and administrative links with East Dunbartonshire with which it should be linked. However, that did not serve the ends of Sir Michael Hirst or those of the Tory party which is trying to create particular conditions for Bearsden and Strathkelvin. It is a serious charge—

Mr. Gallie: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. In view of his comments, and given his support for the notion of single tier authorities included in Labour's manifesto at the previous election, and given what I understand to be his "anti-feelings" for a Scottish Assembly, would he have been happy with the changes had he got his way over the boundaries that he wants for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth? If so, it is a pity that such an argument was not advanced in Committee.

Mr. Hogg: The answer is that I hope that I can always see the bigger picture. I hope that I come to the House with a view on Scottish local government as a whole and am not driven by parochial considerations of the type that apparently motivate the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). Even if the Minister agreed with what I wanted in respect of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, I would still be immensely unhappy with the Bill and would vote against it for the reasons already set out by my party's Front-Bench spokesmen on Second Reading, in Committee and again today. I hope that that clarifies the position for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. George Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman has made some pretty strong accusations about how the boundaries were created. Unless I missed something in Committee, I did not hear the Labour party offer any proposals on boundaries, with the exception, I think, of Ayrshire.

Mr. Hogg: In fact, the Opposition tabled amendments affecting Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and East Dunbartonshire and they were consistent with the view that I am advancing now. The hon. Gentleman is therefore wrong.
It has become clear that the Government have tried to arrange things in my area in the hope that another part of Scotland will ultimately return a Conservative Member of Parliament and a Conservative-controlled local authority. There is no prospect of either likelihood being realised.
If there were a case for local government reform, the Bill has certainly not met it. A body such as a royal commission should have been charged with reviewing existing arrangements; there should have been full public consultation; the Government should have sought a consensus on any proposals for change; and, above all, any proposals should have had the confidence of the Scottish people. The Bill fulfils none of those criteria.
To use an old phrase, this is a wicked Tory Government. They are far removed from the principles on which the Tory party once thrived. This is not a matter of conviction politics; it is a product not of conviction politics but of expediency. There is no concept of one nation, just autocratic diktat. There is no belief in the people or the judgment of the people. The Government simply believe that they know what is best for us, that they are our betters, and that they can tell us how to behave and think.
The Scottish Office has no respect for the people or great institutions of local government in Scotland. The people have sensed that the Government have no respect for them, which is why the people have no respect for the Government and why 13.7 per cent. Tory support in recent elections stands as a condemnation of the Secretary of State and his Front-Bench team who have so clearly failed to take account of the view of the Scottish people.
This is a squalid Bill. It is the most squalid measure that I have encountered in my 15 years in the House. I am ashamed that it will be passed. The fact that it has been brought before us does not increase the respect in which Parliament is held. The people of Scotland will have none of it and they will have nothing to do with the Conservative Government. The Conservatives will be swept away in whatever elections they put up candidates.

Mr. George Kynoch: I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with great interest and watched the reaction of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). When my right hon. Friend referred to the confusion between the tiers of local government—confusion that I have encountered in my constituency—the hon. Member for Fife, Central shook his head and did not appear to accept that such confusion existed. I can only quote from a document published in February 1990 which stated:
The continuing widespread confusion about what tier carries out what functions undermines accountability.
That document, entitled "The Future of Local Government in Scotland", was the Labour party's pre-election policy document. It has been universally accepted that there is confusion between the two existing tiers and, as was mentioned on Second Reading, all the Opposition parties have at some stage advocated single-tier unitary authorities.
I also listened with interest to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), but I heard nothing new. Since I have been a Member of Parliament, and since the consultation documents were published, the hon. Gentleman has done nothing but scaremonger. He has spread scare stories about the setting up of a most cost-effective and efficient tier of local government, and about water and sewerage.
As the hon. Member for Hamilton repeated something that he said on Report, I shall repeat something that I said. I heard him say on the BBC "Scottish Lobby" programme that the issue of water privatisation was a dead duck and that the Government had made it virtually impossible for Scottish water to be privatised because of the insertion of clause 79, which enforces current legislation preventing water supplies from being disconnected.
The hon. Member for Hamilton clearly said that; have it on videotape, and if he cares to ask to see it I shall be more than happy to arrange for it to be played back to him again and again. He does the people of Scotland a grave disservice by continuing to peddle such scaremongering to people who are less able than he to argue the point, and who have been told clearly many times by the Secretary of State and his Ministers that Scottish Water will not be privatised. However, we need to do something about it; we need to make it a better organisation, and to take it forward in order to find the £5 billion in capital expenditure that will be needed over the next 10 to 15 years, and to cope with the new structure of local government.
I talked about confusion. One of the main areas of confusion—

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman will have heard his colleague from the north-east, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), express satisfaction with the Conservative party's results in the local elections. I found that confusing, so I checked in the edition of The Herald dated Saturday 7 May, which gives the local results by parliamentary constituency. It turns out that the Tory party is 8 per cent. behind in Aberdeen, South, 30 per cent. behind in Aberdeen, North, 26 per cent. behind in Aberdeen, Central, 47 per cent. behind in Banff and Buchan, 17 per cent. behind in Gordon, 30 per cent. behind in Moray and 16 per cent. behind in what would be the constituency of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch)—Deeside and Howes. Is the hon. Gentleman as satisfied as his hon. Friend is with those results?

Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the local election results, but what he does not take into account is the role of independents—[Laughter.] In my constituency the issues were significantly clouded—[Interruption.] However, I shall not embark on that argument, because I know that the hon. Gentleman is engaged in a battle with his Opposition colleagues in the Labour party over what the result of the Euro-election in the north-east of Scotland will be. However, I can tell him that his figures are totally wrong; if he considers the general election results he will realise that the Conservatives will win with a majority of 20,000.
Before I am ordered to do so, I shall now return to the Bill. I was talking about confusion between the two tiers of local government, especially on planning. In my constituency, the picture for long-term and strategic planning is at present one of great confusion. There is talk in Grampian of a proposed new settlement. Kincardine and Deeside had already thrown out the idea at district level, but Grampian region initially decided to approve a new settlement in my constituency. Confusion existed while the proposal ping-ponged backwards and forwards between the region and the district. Finally, it was thrown out by the previous administration in the region, much to the annoyance of the Labour convenor.
The issue will not go away. While we have a district council and a regional council that can take totally opposing views there will be total confusion, and that does not serve the best interests of the local community, nor the future of the area.
As the Secretary of State said, we have had a long period of debate on the local government reform. I had forgotten that it was as many as three years ago that my right hon. Friend introduced his first consultation document. I remember that in the run-up to the general election a major part of my campaign was the fact that we regarded the reform as a key piece of legislation for the future, so that we could get rid of the two tiers and consolidate them into one, so that local government would be better and more effective.
Throughout the consultation period, my right hon. Friend has listened effectively. I especially commend him and his Ministers for the amount of listening that they did in Committee. My right hon. Friend knows that some of us were concerned about various issues, whether those were minor details concerning boundaries or the need to look


after the interests of the rural communities with regard to water services. On all those issues my right hon. Friend has listened and has moved. He commended his ministerial team; may I add to that my commendation of the long-suffering Whip, the Lords Commissioner to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope).
Having sat through 177½ hours of debate in Committee, listening to debates such as the one about the word "reasonably", which lasted three hours, at one time I questioned whether the Opposition were opposing or simply trying to obstruct. However, I know that they were in order because the Chairman kept them in order. I take my hat off to, and commend, both the management and the chairmanship of the Committee. Because the Committee stage was allowed to run for its full 177½ hours, the Opposition were left with no excuse for saying that their concerns and worries had not been fully aired.
Yet the Opposition continue to peddle their lies about water—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They continue to peddle their distortions about water. They are still arguing that the Government are intent on doing something that the Government do not intend to do. Typical of their behaviour throughout has been the fact that they cannot oppose in a constructive manner. I have not heard them make constructive proposals on any issue.
Throughout our proceedings, the Opposition seemed intent on arguing the case for looking after local government employees' jobs. I commend them for that, because in any reorganisation, whether in business or in local government, one must ensure that the transition from one structure to another is made in an orderly fashion so as to safeguard the rights and the best interests of employees. Unfortunately, change is sometimes necessary. To obstruct on the sole basis that jobs will be lost is totally unconstructive in terms of looking after the interests of the people whom we are here to represent—the people of Scotland, the ratepayers and the taxpayers of Scotland.

Mr. Connarty: Is the hon. Gentleman really trying to sell to this House a package saying that all the people who wrote in and whom the Opposition represented—all the lobbying organisations such as Enable and Relate, and all the people who wrote in about special education, about the destruction of children's panels, and about many other issues—were trying to be obstructive? Will he not give credit where credit is due? A case was put for many people in Scotland who do not want the Bill, yet the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends ignored them.

Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I recognise that the Opposition put forward cases on behalf of organisations such as Enable, on behalf of children, on behalf of children's panels, and so on. However, the Opposition have not accepted that within the Bill as drafted my right hon. Friend and his Ministers have allowed the flexibility for the new councils to provide the services in the best possible way for their constituents.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) does not accept that what may be a good structure in the central belt is not necessarily the best structure in the north-east of Scotland. I commend my right hon. Friend's proposal for the north-east, which is now clear in the Bill. The Bill will

give us a single-tier authority big enough to provide the services in the area, and big enough to command the highly qualified staff that will be required to deliver those services, but one which will, at the same time, be able to decentralise to provide local services.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the hon. Gentleman retract his statement that the Opposition lied? We have made it clear that where water is concerned there are no ifs, no buts and no whats. We do not want privatisation; we do not want franchising; we do not want quangos.

Mr. Kynoch: What I said about the Opposition's attitude to water relates clearly to the fact that the Secretary of State has said many times—as have the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in Committee—that water privatisation is not on the agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood said that Scottish Water would not be privatised by the front door, by the back door or by any other door. That fact has been stated on innumerable occasions, yet the Opposition still distort it, and the people of Scotland do not know what to believe.
I argued strongly—and the hon. Member for Hamilton has accepted the argument—that the provisions in clause 79 concerning disconnections have made it virtually impossible to privatise Scottish Water. The prospect is not on.

Mr. George Robertson: I did not say that it was virtually impossible to privatise water simply because the Government had included a provision with regard to disconnections; I said that it would make privatisation much more difficult. But the Government have never been prevented by such difficulties in the past and they will not be prevented in the future either. During the election campaign, the Government promised that they would not extend the scope of value added tax, but they have now extended it to domestic fuel. Why should we believe their promises about water, any more than their promises about VAT?

Mr. Kynoch: If the hon. Gentleman had been present earlier this afternoon, he would have got a response to that: it was never referred to.
I shall draw my remarks to a close by saying that the Bill is nearing its completion in this House and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) said, going on to another phase in another place. It is important that we encourage local authorities which thus far have not co-operated with the Government during the passage of the Bill to co-operate now in the interests of the people of Scotland.
In Grampian and the north-east of Scotland, the Association of District Councils in Grampian, under the current chairmanship of Councillor Doreen Ewing, convenor of Kincardine and Deeside district council, has already started talking in outline about the way forward under single-tier authorities, but it has been thwarted in taking the matter much further by the non-co-operation of Grampian regional council. I implore my right hon. Friend to do whatever he can to encourage the new administration in Grampian region to co-operate with his Department by providing the necessary information to enable it, in turn, to give the financial information back to the existing


councillors in the area, thus enabling them to plan the way forward. It is in the best interests of the people of Scotland that the Bill should go forward as smoothly and as quickly as possible.

Mr. James Wallace: First, I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in extending sympathy to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Under-Secretary of State, on his recent sad bereavement and I am sure that I speak on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends in doing so.
It seemed that the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) was unable to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Hamilton that the Government completely deceived the electorate about their intentions on value added tax and extending the VAT base. The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside cannot now understand why the people of Scotland have difficulty believing what the Secretary of State said on water privatisation. The credibility of Tory Members and Ministers in Scotland is so low that if a Scottish Tory said that snow was white, most Scots would want to suspend judgment until next winter so as to check for themselves. That is the sort of loss of credibility that Tory Members have suffered, and they cannot complain if the people will not believe at first hand what they say.
The Bill is a thoroughly bad Bill. It is unwanted, it is ill thought out and it is anti-democratic. It is true that during its passage in Committee and on Report a number of boundary changes were made which my hon. Friends and I wished to see. We wished to see the restoration of Westhill to Aberdeenshire—we welcome the conversion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) to that move—the restoration of Berwickshire to its proper place in the Borders, the establishment of a separate council for Inverclyde, and the restoration of Ralston to Renfrewshire. Those changes are eloquent testimony to the power of Liberal Democrat success at the ballot box.
On this Bench, however, the test never was and never would be the niceties of boundary lines. Placing Westhill in Aberdeen city or in Aberdeenshire matters little if neither authority has power to deal effectively with local issues affecting the area. The real test is whether the Bill will strengthen and improve the quality of local democracy and by that test it fails miserably.
The Bill is unwanted because there is no real democratic mandate for it. On occasions when Tory Members have quoted—as they have done today—from the manifestos of the Scottish Opposition parties citing support for single-tier local government throughout Scotland, they have conveniently ignored the context of a home rule Parliament in which those commitments were made. Indeed, the exclusively Scottish issue of Scottish local government should be determined in a Scottish Parliament.
Nor can the results of the local elections on 5 May be taken as an endorsement of the provisions of the Bill. Even in Aberdeen, the Tory party came in fourth place with only 16.4 per cent. of the vote. If that is the kind of result that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South regards as a ringing endorsement of the Government's proposals, I hope that it will be repeated at the next general election.

Mr. Kynoch: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. Perhaps he will point out to his friends on the Labour Benches that the Labour party actually lost four seats in Aberdeen city.

Mr. Wallace: I am happy to take the opportunity to say that the Liberal Democrats did well in Aberdeen city. Among the issues on which our campaign was based were the Government's proposals for local government and for the future of water and sewerage services, so the Conservative failure at the ballot box shows what the people really think of the proposals.
In Grampian region, the number of Tory councillors is now down to single figures in a region which their party controlled for eight years, and there is not one Tory councillor left in Fife, where the Tory party is even in a worse position than the Communist party even though it got 10 per cent. of the vote. Perhaps if Tory Members want to join us in campaigning for proportional representation —that is not a feature of the Bill, which shows once again that the Bill is undemocratic—we would certainly welcome their conversion.
The water and sewerage provisions in the Bill are unwanted. People know that the issue is about quangos. Certainly, my experience during the local elections in different parts of Scotland showed that the people clearly understood what the issue was about—it was about taking responsibility out of the hands of elected councillors and putting it into the hands of placemen and placewomen. A vital service which has been in municipal hands for many years is disappearing out of the hands of those with elected responsibility. Having travelled throughout Scotland, I cannot claim to have been deafened by any clamour to pass the Bill today.
The Bill is also ill thought out. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) served diligently on the Committee on behalf of my party's interests. On many occasions, I found him in his office suffering from frustration and disbelief at how ill equipped Ministers had been to respond to detailed probing on various aspects of the Bill, not only in response to partisan points that were being made, but on matters of substance relating to the delivery of important services. I recall one evening going to watch the proceedings of the Committee from the public benches and seeing the Under-Secretary of State stand up and, in response to a question or an intervention from the hon. Member for Hamilton, contradict a Government amendment that he had just moved. I accept that one can make mistakes late at night, but the thing that really worried me was that the Under-Secretary of State did not realise that there was a contradiction, which shows how little understanding Ministers have of what they are trying to do in the Bill.
Today, we heard the Secretary of State say that joint boards would not confuse the electorate—we would all know that it was a responsibility of the councils. It is not so many years ago—it must be a number of years because the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was the Member for Edinburgh, South and a Scottish Office Minister at the time—that I went to see the hon. Gentleman about a joint board for the police in the northern constabulary where, clearly, most of the members who came from Highland region were trying to make decisions which would adversely affect the Islands interests and


where the locally elected councillors for the Islands had only limited powers. Joint boards will cause confusion—that has been underestimated by the Secretary of State.
Hon. Members who were in the House last Tuesday will recall the hon. Members for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asking about the consequences of water no longer being pumped from disused mines. Not only did the Secretary of State seem to have difficulty answering the question; he appeared unaware that it was even a problem. There are a number of such issues on which I am sure that there will be problems when the Bill is enacted.
In the same debate, the Secretary of State was asked why there were only three authorities instead of four or five. We are still waiting for an answer. All that we get is a bold assertion that that is what it says in the Minister's brief. Unlike previous restructuring, this reform or restructuring of local government has not been preceded by an independent commission or detailed analysis; nor does it proceed on a generally consensual basis. That does not bode well for the Bill's implementation, because even with good will it is likely to drive down morale, especially among staff whose future employment and conditions are still in doubt.

Mr. Dalyell: It has done already.

Mr. Wallace: As the hon. Member for Linlithgow says, it has done so already.
Perhaps most important, the Bill is anti-democratic. The transfer of water and sewerage services from elected to non-elected hands is, beyond doubt, an undemocratic reform. To pile more than 180 measures on top of the 160 measures that have already been introduced by the Government to transfer power and responsibility from local to central Government is in itself fundamentally anti-democratic.
Conservative Members ought to be aware that the powers given to the Secretary of State by order could be used by a Secretary of State from another party. If an incoming Secretary of State for Scotland chose to use them to clear the placemen and placewomen out of the water authorities and replace them with elected councillors, he or she would have my full support.
Above all else, the Government have abused the language by saying that the Bill will be a shot in the arm for local democracy. It is an abuse of the English language because they are doing one thing and claiming that it is the opposite. Most important, they have not listened, learnt or changed, especially in the light of the Strathclyde referendum.
In a letter to the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 22 December, the Prime Minister said of the measure, with particular reference to water:
The Bill will shortly begin its parliamentary scrutiny. That will provide the opportunity for both principle and detail to be publicly debated and at the end of the day Parliament will decide what is to become law. That is the right approach and one which allows Scottish opinion to be given expression through Members of Parliament.
It is evident that Scottish opinion has not been given such expression.
The most significant contribution to our discussions last week came from the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who said during our debate on water:

The issue will become the attitude of people in Scotland towards the Union. Because of political history I, of all people, am empowered to tell him"—
the Secretary of State—
that if he goes ahead he must not start lamenting when the Union turns sour."—[Official Report, 17 May 1994; Vol.243, c. 725.]
Neither I nor my party want Scotland to go down a costly road to independence, but we should reflect on the fact that the threat to the Union in this century did not come from the parties of home rule but from intransigent Unionists—and that is still the case today. When the then Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, moved the Government of Ireland Bill in 1912, he said:
We are content to delegate local matters to the different constituent units. However well we may transact … our common and Imperial affairs, we must perpetually bungle and mismanage the affairs of each unit. That, Sir, is what Home Rule, as we understand it, and federation as we are going to pursue it, means for the people of this country."—[Official Report, 9 May 1912; Vol.38, c. 700.]
This Bill is today's monument to Westminster's continuing bungled and mismanaged government of Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall not speak at great length, but that does not mean that I do not have strong views on a number of matters.
First, we should recognise that much consultation has taken place. In Committee, many hours were spent reviewing the Bill and considering its detail, so no one can say that the House did not give it adequate consideration.
I am concerned because the Bill is important and has massive constitutional implications. The attitude that the Labour party demonstrated throughout the Committee stage can only be described as humbug. Labour Members want to establish a Scottish Parliament, or whatever it is to be called; I should have thought that they would agree that the measures contained in the Bill would make it easier for an incoming Government to do just that. That is certainly true of all the powers given to non-elected bodies, which could easily be transferred to an incoming Scottish Parliament.
I was concerned from the outset, but not because I am opposed to the principle, as I support single-tier unitary authorities. I know that in Tayside, Perth and Kinross, Angus and also Dundee people are happy to have such authorities. I shall not speak for other areas, but I can speak about those with some authority. We were also satisfied that the arguments on boundaries were listened to and acted upon. There is therefore no doubt that anyone who is genuinely interested in the well-being or future good government of Scotland would recognise that the principle of single-tier unitary authorities was accepted by all. One runs into problems over matters that have to be dealt with outside the smaller, new unitary authorities. They quite properly caused considerable debate. There is no doubt that some of the debate was motivated by concern about job preservation, but much was motivated by concern about the provision of services and the Committee had to deal with that.
Because of the circumstances in which the Bill came about and the pledges given before the general election, I believed that the Government would produce a Bill which —one hopes—will become an Act and establish unitary authorities. The Government will have delivered their pledge.
I hope that when we reach saner times we shall reconsider how we deliver services and make the people delivering them accountable. If we do not do so, we shall provide the very set-up that an incoming Labour Administration would welcome, if Labour ever get elected —I am not one of those who think that the next general election is lost—

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Or won.

Mr. Walker: Or won, but I am concerned with losing it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that.
The recent election results were serious and ought not to be ignored. Anyone who thinks that they can take a flippant view of the results is not being realistic. I remind Opposition Members, however, that I have listened for many years to them telling me that an incoming Labour Government would do such and such, but such a Government never came to pass. I have also listened to the views of separatists, but their predictions have not come to pass either.
One thing that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I probably agree on is that the structures created by the Bill have constitutional implications. My party should consider that and deal with those implications before it is too late.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) seemed to believe that the Bill, if it is enacted, would make it easier to create a Scottish Parliament. Whether that is true or not, it is no excuse for dismantling Scottish local government services and every system in such a desultory and unsatisfactory way.
It is inevitable that, after all the talk today, the Government will produce their majority and the Bill will be hammered through, as it was hammered through in Committee with 102 defeats for Scotland. It will pass into law against the wishes of the Scottish people. There is no wish for this change in Scotland. There is a wish for a consensus view and a well-thought-out change in local government that will last well into the 21st century and not merely 20 years, as the last change has done. The Government have not produced such a change, and we are witnessing a wasted opportunity.
The Bill has no consensus, except perhaps against it —it is not even perhaps; it has a consensus against it. Because of that and its relationship with the Tory party it will not last.

Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his district council, which is SNP-controlled, is against the proposal for a single-tier Angus?

Mr. Welsh: Had there been proper consultation, or consultation similar to that undertaken by Wheatley—or an ounce of the thought that he and his commission put into the matter—we would have had a chance of a proper local government system that would be agreed.
The Minister mentioned Angus district council. The district is a good size and will make an excellent council. One hopes that it will continue to be controlled by the Scottish National party and to be one of the best run in the country. That is no excuse, however, for destroying the system in the way that the Government have done, without

consulting the people. It is certainly no excuse for stealing Scotland's water assets, which is totally against the wishes of the people in the way that they have done.
After all the talk in Committee and on Report, the Bill is basically unchanged, apart from some boundary changes. It is as the Government always wanted it to be, but as the Scottish people did not. Concessions such as retaining the title of firemaster are no consolation for the loss of services and the attack on Scottish local government contained in this atrocious and unacceptable Bill.
These are Tory changes which are inextricably linked with the Conservative party. They have been made by and for the political convenience of the Conservative party. It is a Tory measure from start to finish, and it will be seen as such. It simply will not stand the test of the future.
There is no popular support for moving from a service-providing local government system to that of mere enabling authorities. The opposite is true. The Scottish people have already shown that they wish water services to remain as a service provision by local authorities. There has been no real consultation, and it is ludicrous for the Secretary of State to pretend that there has. There has not, and the whole of Scotland knows it.
There has been no commission in Scotland to take a proper look at the situation. All we have had is the imposition of the Government's own views. Certainly there has been no consensus, except in creating outright opposition both at local elections and general elections against the Government and the proposals. The Bill is basically an ill-thought-out botch-up. The boundaries it proposes defy analysis. They are not based on Wheatley's city regions, and they are not based on the old counties.
Can the Minister explain how it happened? We certainly did not hear any rational analysis from the Secretary of State of the basis on which the Government approached the boundary changes. They vary in size from the Highlands—geographically the same size as Wales—to tiny Clackmannan. There is apparently no rhyme or reason to the decisions.
The Government are simply tacking and changing for short-term gain without any overall principle apart from their own party political self-interest. The end product has been not a simplified unitary system at all, but a more complex multi-tiered, various-sized, central-Government-dominated set-up. The Government cannot hide from their responsibility for creating this mess of a Bill.
The rushed timetable was self-inflicted; the Government chose to rush the measure through—nobody else. The motivation of the Treasury rules was also self-inflicted, as was the massive fiscal deficit which overshadows everything else, and the previous lack of investment in water and sewerage services. On all counts, Scottish local government is being made to pay for the Government's past policy mistakes.
The Government—and no one else—are to blame for the failure to provide statutory directors of education and social work committees.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has just blamed the Government for the failure to maintain and provide reasonable water and sewerage systems in Scotland. Have not water and sewerage been under the control of local authorities since the turn of the century? Surely theirs is the failure, and the Government are trying to address that.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Member clearly does not know anything about capital consents. Local government has a superb record of supplying quality services at low cost to the Scottish people. They understand that, and have asked the local authorities to continue. The hon. Gentleman is throwing democracy to one side and denying the 1.2 million people in Strathclyde who have said no to the changes which his Government are forcing, through thanks to the nature of this Parliament and the Union. We will see that tonight when the votes are counted.
The refusal to have statutory directors of education and social work, statutory social work committees and directors of social work is simply a continued attack on the poor and vulnerable in Scotland, and that should not be happening.
I must say also that the people who brought us the poll tax and who are taking water services out of Scotland have rejected seat belts in school buses. I have never heard before of somebody writing a third suicide note, but the Government have just done so.
The Bill would allow the barbarity of warrant sales to be inflicted for water debts, and advocates three-year, short-term electoral cycles.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Any council in Scotland can impose within its contracts with school buses conditions and stipulations which make it absolutely clear that seat belts can be made mandatory. The hon. Gentleman is totally misleading the House on that point.

Mr. Welsh: I do not think I am. Any council can do that, and Tayside has just done it under the Scottish National party. The point is that the Government could have made sure that every council had those powers, by putting the matter on the face of the Bill. The Minister has abdicated his responsibility. He could have put the matter on the face of the Bill.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A council does have powers to put that in its contracts and, if it wishes, it is strongly encouraged to do so. We acknowledge that there has been public pressure for councils to do just that.

Mr. Welsh: When the Government want to make sure of something, they put powers into the Bill, and this Bill is full of Secretary of State's powers. Why did not the Government make sure in this case? They would have had popular support, and support from both sides of the House. When the Government want to abdicate their responsibilities, they run the other way. There can be no excuses. The Government turned down an amendment that would have made sure that seat belts were installed in school buses. The Government made a mistake in not doing so.
The Bill reduces Scotland's elected representatives to the lowest proportion per head in the whole of western Europe, and replaces them with more placemen and women, hand-picked by the Tories in quangos such as the three giant water boards. So much for decentralisation. The Government create three unelected and unaccountable giant quangos and destroy elected, democratic and accountable local authorities.
The Bill multiplies centralised power and, while the Government talk about subsidiarity at a European level, they centralise power from local government in Scotland. The water services proposals are plainly wrong, unfair and undemocratic. There has been no attempt whatsoever to

tackle the problems involved. Debt interest payments will continue to cost more each year than water service provision.
There is no green dowry in sight, so what was good enough for England will not be good enough for Scotland. Scottish taxpayers who have found that their money has been used to sweeten privatisation in England will not find a similar deal in Scotland from the Government.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is talking as if water is being privatised. There is nothing to give a dowry on, as water is still in the public sector.

Mr. Welsh: I know that hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be as fast as I can. The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) and his Front-Bench Members have repeated promises tonight. I remind him that, in 1984, Neil Macfarlane, then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said:
We have absolutely no intention of privatising the water industry. The Government have no plans to urge that upon the water authorities. There has been some press speculation about it in the past, but there is no intention to do so."—[Official Report, 19 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 457.]
Two years later, another Minister—the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) the then Secretary of State for the Environment, said:
In the last six years we have made the water authorities fit and ready to join the private sector …
Privatisation is the next logical step."—[Official Report, 5 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 288.]
We have heard all those promises before, and they were broken. Why should we trust the Government any more now than when they made the promises in the past?
The only rational conclusion must be that any future investments in water services will be paid for by vastly higher water charges imposed by the three unelected, unaccountable quangos, which will meet in private.
The Bill is a charter for the Government to steal Scotland's massive water resources prior to privatisation. The Secretary of State for Scotland is our very own Ceaucescu. When 97 per cent. of voters do not want the changes, he just ignores them. No doubt he would equally ignore them if 100 per cent. of Scots were opposed to the plans.
The right hon. Gentleman takes a sort of President Marcos approach to democracy—consult, then ignore. His own party has twigged what is going on. If the Secretary of State does not have the Scottish people on his side, at least he has England and the Union. We will find that out tonight when English Members who have not been present turn out and vote the measure through, against the clear wishes of the Scottish people.
The Tories cannot hide for ever,and they will eventually have to face the electorate again. This has been a shameful process in which an unwanted, unnecessary and ill-thought-out affront to Scotland is being forced upon our people. An opportunity to provide real democratic local government—the services which the Scottish people really want—has been thrown to one side by this dogmatic Government. They have a great deal to answer for, and answer they will.

Mr. Phil Gaulle: It is a great pleasure to speak at the final stage of the Bill, before it goes to another place. I look forward to discussing it again once it returns, and hope that it will be a fairly swift return.
Having listened carefully to the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I think that it is a great pity that he could not find a place on the Committee. It was dastardly of Opposition Members, recognising the requirement of the Secretary of State to represent Scotland's views at Cabinet level, deliberately to keep my right hon. Friend off the Committee. However, having seen how my right hon. Friend destroyed the arguments of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) before he rose to speak, I well understand why the Labour party did not want my right hon. Friend on the Committee.
We had many long and full debates in Committee. What emerged was that the Government had no intention of gerrymandering boundaries. It was up to individual Members to represent local views. Sadly, Opposition Members hung back on that and did not fight their corner, with the exception of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who fought the battle for the Borders and won. He presented his arguments well, and persuaded the Minister to listen to sound and sustained argument. It is just a shame that Labour Members did not follow suit.
I have two reservations about the present boundaries. The first is in the Fife area. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) used the word "crazy" in virtually every contribution he made. He defended the requirement for Fife to have a single-tier authority based on the region. I wonder at the wisdom of the Government in accepting that option. I hope that we do not live to regret making that decision.
The second issue on which I have slight regrets is the sound arguments by Clydesdale district for a single-tier authority based in that area. I am saddened that the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), perhaps bludgeoned into submission by Opposition Front-Bench Members, did not defend the right of those in Clydesdale to achieve a single-tier local authority that would have been larger than the Clackmannan authority that has since been established.
There has been wide debate on a number of issues, including school transport. We heard about the concerns of parents throughout Scotland, and of the Catholic Church. Measures were taken to recognise the problems that would arise. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) suggested that the -Government should have legislated to make local authorities fit seat belts in school buses. That is centralisation. Throughout the Bill's Committee stage, Opposition Members argued against centralisation. Are they now saying that, if the Government do not legislate, local authorities will not achieve? Surely the Government are right to give local authorities the responsibilities and powers, and let them get on with the job.

Mr. Welsh: Hon. Members on both sides of the House want seat belts fitted on minibuses. The Government defeated an amendment that would have ensured that seat belts were fitted on school buses. When the Government want something, they are quick to use that power, but they have not been willing to do so in this case. Individual local authorities have that power, and the SNP-controlled authority in Tayside has introduced seat belts. As in ordinary automobiles, one way to ensure that seat belts are fitted is to pass such an amendment.

Mr. Gallie: The amendment was illogical, as it concentrated on school buses. Local authorities use coaches for a range of options. The amendment dealt with

school buses only in Scotland, whereas we should look at the position UK and Europewide. That is currently happening and, before long, legislation will probably be introduced to meet that requirement.
We heard many stories about children's panels, but little about the downside. I have attended the hearings of children's panels in my area and am acquainted with some of their requirements and problems. Much of the resentment arose from the fact that too great a clamp was put on them by social work directors.

Mr. Henry McLeish: Rubbish.

Mr. Gallie: It is certainly not rubbish in Ayrshire; it is up to the hon. Gentleman to say whether it is rubbish in Fife. But that viewpoint came across to me when I attended the panels' area council in my constituency.
Water has been key area of controversy throughout our debates. I know that my hon. Friends were aware of Strathclyde's referendum, but were they aware of a report on water commissioned by Strathclyde regional council?
Sir William Halcrow was asked to examine the management of water structures and provision within Strathclyde. What have we heard about that? What were the findings? The report found that, if water was to remain in the public sector, it needed to mimic the commercial organisation of other management structures. For that matter, it needed to mimic the management structures of working arrangements set up in the privatised industries in England and Wales.
The electorate of Strathclyde heard not a dicky bird about that. The council went ahead with the referendum—

Mr. George Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: No, not for the moment. I am under some pressure to continue, because the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) wants to speak.
Strathclyde council held back the report from the electorate. Opposition Members shout about open government, but, when it comes to doing something practical about it when they are in government and have an opportunity to do so, they hide their findings because they do not suit their purpose.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: No, I shall not give way.
Strathclyde council distorted the facts. It maintained the belief that water would be privatised, and got the result it wanted in the referendum.

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to make assertions to the House that an elected local authority hid from its public the conclusions of a report, whereas that local authority had a press conference on that report? Is not the hon. Gentleman in danger of getting precious close to misleading the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Hon. Members are entirely responsible for what they say in the Chamber. It has nothing to do with the Chair, so long as their remarks do not impugn other hon. Members.

Mr. Gallie: I was quoting from the Scottish Sunday press. As Opposition Members always seem to believe


everything they read in the newspapers, I may have been marginally gullible—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hamilton is right.
At the weekend, I checked how many of the people who responded to the referendum had heard about the Halcrow report, and not one knew what I was talking about. The news of the report came as a complete surprise. Why did not Strathclyde council issue the information with the referendum? Why did it not give the facts? Opposition Members know the answer as well as I do—it was because it did not suit its purpose.

Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. Will he tell the House that the Halcrow report said that the water industry was suffering from under-investment but that that was directly caused because capital consents to do so had not been given by central Government? If, as I have said, the Halcrow report was released and there was a press conference, what does it have to say about the assertions that the hon. Gentleman has just made?

Mr. Gallie: I recognise full well that central Government makes a lot of demands upon the national borrowing requirement. This country is already deep in debt. Public sector borrowing is excessive at the present time. It is better that cash is found from other sources. That is the intention of the Bill as far as water is concerned. I approve of that.
Drawing to a close—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps I will continue for a wee while longer. I refer to the words of the hon. Member for Hamilton a few minutes ago. He suggested that the Government were vandalising local government and tearing apart structures which had served Scotland well for 20 years. That is open to question. In my view, Strathclyde regional council never gelled or registered with a large part of the constituency.
If the hon. Member's view is to stand, I wonder how he will reflect upon this fact. As I understand it, Opposition Members opposed tooth and nail the setting up of the structures of which he now supposedly regrets the demise. I suggest to hon. Members that, in 50 years' time, people will look back and feel happy about their accountable and responsible local government units. They will be grateful to the Conservative party for insisting upon the reforms that it introduced in 1994.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Obviously the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) had a preview of the speech by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). When he referred to humbug, he was obviously referring to the speech to come rather than those which had been made previously.
I heard a comment about the abuse of language. We have heard abuse of language by Government Members tonight when they have talked about democracy and accountability. The Bill will leave Scotland with 1,200 elected councillors and 5,000 people on quangos—and they talk about democracy and accountability! That is certainly an abuse of language.
The hon. Member for Ayr briefly mentioned the boundary question. I think it is a bit of a nonsense, and that is where the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) did

himself and the country a great disservice. Quite frankly, the Bill cannot be taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about local government. It is all about politics and gerrymandering. From day one it was about politics and gerrymandering, as it has been throughout all its stages. When it finally becomes an Act, it will be the most political, gerrymandered Act ever to go through this place. That is a fact.
I know that we are pressed for time in the debate and I have one or two other comments to make, but I have to mention the hon. Gentleman's comments about seat belts in school buses. I did not intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr because I thought that he was taking too much time and I did not want to give him another opportunity to speak more humbug about the problem.
The hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand the problem. I listened to the Minister's intervention as well and, if that was the sum total of his assumptions about the problem, he does not have a clue. I was not of that view until I heard the interventions in the speech of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh).
The hon. Member for Ayr referred to allowing local authorities to spend money and agree to it in a contract. But the issue is about protecting every child in Scotland when he or she is travelling to and from school. It is not about leaving it to discretion. That is the argument.
I deliberately tabled an amendment to an education clause in the Bill because it is not a transport question which is separate from the real problem. I wanted to address the problem of getting our children to and from school safely. To do that, one has to accept that it is a problem for education.
When I moved my amendment I said that, as we make it a legal obligation under education law for parents to send their children to school, why can we not protect those children in transporting them to and from school? When it comes to a question of safety and making seat belts compulsory, the Government run behind the Commission and say that they cannot do anything because of European Community law. When I moved my amendment, I quoted the Commissioner who said that, as a member state of the European Union, we have powers within our own sovereignty—we have heard quite a lot about that—to protect our children with seat belts in school buses. That is why I moved the amendment.
It is no good Conservative Members, who trooped through the lobbies last week to vote down the amendment, looking for excuses. It was a disgrace. It was an opportunity for us to take a lead in this area. I cannot accept what the Minister said from the Dispatch Box last week about it being a United Kingdom problem. It was not a UK problem when Scotland got the poll tax a year before England and Wales. It was not a UK problem when the Government, thankfully, conceded and made it illegal to cut off water supplies. That was different from what happened in England as well.
We had an opportunity—and the Minister knows it—to pass an amendment to the Bill which would have made it compulsory to protect children while they were travelling to and from school. Tragically, the Minister ran away from it. When the Department of Transport releases its report, we will see that it is full of excuses to do nothing. That is all we will hear. The Minister can intervene if I have said anything that he wants to correct, but I am sure that he does not want to do so.
On the question of tourism, the Government have taken a nonsensical decision to amalgamate the Clyde Valley tourist board with the City of Glasgow. How can the Government say seriously that it is in the best interests of tourism to amalgamate a city culture with a rural culture and try to address the problems of both? They are different cultures with their own Interests to serve. Amalgamating the two will create great problems.
Government Members have done their party no favours, but I am not here to advise them about how to represent their party better. The hon. Member for Ayr said that the Conservatives in Scotland have listened to the people. What about the 86 per cent. who voted against the privatisation of water? That is why we put down our amendments: to stop privatisation. We are the listening party. If the Government can be admired for anything—I cannot think of anything off the top of my head to admire them for—it is for their gall. If that is not gall, I do not know what is.
If this is a new listening party, it should accept that more than 80 per cent. of people are against the privatisation of water—and I suggest that the figure is higher than that. I also remind it that more than 90 per cent. of the people want a Scottish Parliament. It has not listened to that for the past eight or nine years. These questions must be addressed.
The hon. Gentleman should not try to kid us by saying that the Government are listening. They are not listening. They are not considering in any way the true interests of the Scottish people, and they will have to account for it at the ballot box.

Mr. Ian Davidson: I note with some regret that the hon. Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) have not deigned to grace us with their presence during the debate. They formed the Government's majority in Committee. Without them, the Government would not have put through the vast majority of the motions that they carried in Committee. Their interest in Scottish local government is so considerable that they have not bothered to turn up for the debate today. That illustrates the way in which the Government have proceeded on the Bill. They have not bothered to listen to the views of the Scottish people or of the majority of their elected representatives. They have been prepared ruthlessly to use a majority to ram through policies that were ill considered, badly thought out and designed simply to promote partisan advantage.
I wish to mention one aspect of local government that was inadequately touched on earlier.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Davidson: I want to proceed because I know that a number of other hon. Members want to speak.
At present, local authority councillors are overworked and grossly underpaid for the valuable work that they undertake on behalf of the community. The position will worsen as a result of the changes that the Government are introducing, because they intend to reduce the total number of councillors in Scotland.
It is not enough to say that everyone who does the job of a councillor is a volunteer. Those men and women take on an important social role on behalf of their communities.

They suffer mightily as a result, in financial and in family terms, and they are inadequately resourced for it. I believe that the Government should take the opportunity to announce that they intend adequately to resource the payment to elected councillors as part of the introduction of any new local government system.
The burden that councillors will have to bear in the new authorities will be greater because, not only will they have to make policy decisions as they did in the past, but they will be in the front line when they are confronted by the public to explain why services are being reduced at a time of increased need and decreased provision. They will have to carry the burden of the decisions which we make here, and which, from the Scottish side, the vast majority are forced to make against their will.
The present local government finance system results in councillors who are unemployed being virtually unem-ployable, those who are in employment losing the opportunities for promotion and those who are in work losing money as a result of broken time payments and losing pension payments for the future. None of that is adequately taken into account. The Government should make adequate recompense to councillors. No one becomes a local councillor for the money, but that is no reason why councillors should be penalised financially in the way that they are.
I enjoyed the Secretary of State's well-presented, witty speech. It was the House of Commons as vaudeville—as theatre. However, we should not allow the style of the Secretary of State's delivery to mask the content. The content was every bit as ruthless as that of any speech from the Government throughout the discussion of Scottish local government. It is a clear attempt to gerrymander the local government map. It is a corrupt and dishonest set of proposals, deliberately designed for partisan advantage.
My colleagues and I have a responsibility to the Scottish public to continue to repeat that not only were the measures drawn up in a fundamentally flawed way, but their motivation is alien to the public spirit that has operated throughout Scotland for many years. Although we have had disagreements in the past, I do not believe that such a nakedly corrupt set of measures has ever issued from a Government. The measures are motivated by malice against local government by the Government, deliberately designed to destroy what they have found it impossible to control. As they cannot win elections, they have decided that they want to emasculate local government. They want to give the powers and responsibilities to their appointees —their chums, their golf partners, their acquaintances, their relations—in a way that the vast majority of the Scottish public reject.
We on the Opposition Benches are united in opposition. Although there are nuances of difference between the Liberals, the nationalists and Labour Members, we have been united on the major issues. It is important to recognise that, with Scottish public opinion behind us, we stopped the privatisation of water and ensured that the Government introduced a measure to stop water disconnections. Nevertheless, I believe, and the majority of Scottish people believe, that, given a chance, the Government will privatise water at the earliest opportunity. It will be the responsibility of elected representatives in the House and in Scotland to ensure that the pressure is kept on the Government; to ensure that they are not allowed to go down the franchising route, which is a step on the road to privatisation. The Scottish people do not believe the


Government when they say that they have no intention now to privatise. They think that, given half a chance, the Government would do it in a flash.
I regret that we did not stop more of the Government's proposals. The costs of reorganisation will come out of services. That will result in worse provision for the people in need of those services. It will result in job losses. I do not simply mourn those job losses because of the disruption to the people involved; I regret them because they will result in dereliction of the duty of local government to provide first-class services. We are having dislocation and disruption which is unwanted and entirely unnecessary. The Government will pay a price for their naked exercise of power—as they have paid a price for it —in the ballot box.
The Secretary of State's speech was not an effort to persuade; it was simply a reiteration of Government policy, delivered tongue in cheek on many occasions with a wee joke and a smile, as if to say that he knew that he would win the vote at the end of the day and did not need to bother taking seriously anything that was said by anyone else.
The dive in the Conservatives' share of the vote in the regional elections to less than 14 per cent. causes us to worry for the future of democracy in Scotland. I was on Strathclyde regional council for several years. I notice, with some regret, that the Conservatives are now down to three out of 103 elected representatives on that council. When I joined, the Conservatives had about two dozen. In such circumstances, a real political debate is possible. I recognise that the Conservatives represent a political current in Scotland and that their views need to be adequately discussed and expressed. However, the viciousness and the extremities of dogma that they are pursuing have driven the Conservatives' vote down.
We ought to consider what has happened in previous Euro-elections, as similar elections are about to take place. In 1979, the Conservatives won five of the eight seats in Scotland. In 1984, they went down to two. In 1989, they went down to none at all and now no one seriously believes that the Conservatives have any prospect of winning a seat in Scotland at the coming elections. I do not believe that, if the Tories thought that they had any prospect of winning Euro-seats in Scotland, they would have proceeded with the local government reorganisation. They have given up, and the way in which they are prepared ruthlessly to use an English majority to ride roughshod over the views of the people of Scotland bodes ill for Scottish democracy.
I hope that the Bill continues to be fought in Scotland. I hope that it is fought in the Lords, even though I want that place to be abolished. The Government should suffer for what they are doing to Scotland tonight.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall ask four succinct questions.
First, on a relatively minor matter, what will be said in the Lords as to whether South Queensferry is to be in West Lothian or in Edinburgh? Will there be a Government amendment?
Secondly, will the Government place in the Library of the House of Lords their view on the background to the figures with which they challenged the Convention of

Scottish Local Authorities? They owe it to COSLA, to David Chynoweth, to Albert Tait and to many other people who are non-political but extremely professionally capable, to show where, according to the Government, they have gone wrong in the COSLA calculations. That information ought to be put into the Lords Library; it is the honourable thing to do.
Thirdly, will the Government place in the Library of the House of Lords a statement of their thinking on the very real problem of strategic planning? This matter is central to areas such as West Lothian, where there is overlapping development. Surely some thought has gone into that.
Fourthly, the Government owe it to us to deposit in the Library of the House of Lords a statement of their thinking on the future of specialist services, especially in relation to social work. For example, as we learned time and again in Committee, many services for the vulnerable can be provided only on a very large scale. If the Bill reaches the statute book, people will very soon be asking where Lothian and Strathclyde are. Much of the help provided by specialist authorities has been taken for granted.
It is the poll tax all over again. We shall see what happens next year, when, I understand from the Government Chief Whip, there will be endless orders—orders on Norfolk, on Somerset, and so on. We shall have all the problems of the English local authorities. It seems to me that once again we in Scotland are the guinea pigs. I think of the memorable words of Enoch Powell: this arrangement has the smell of death about it.
Although I do not want to repeat a point that was made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I must say to the Secretary of State that I do not believe that it was his intention, by dismantling the structures in Strathclyde and Lothian in particular, to produce solutions very different from those that he might favour for the future of Scotland. But when that happens, let it be on his own head.

Mr. Thomas Graham: As many other hon. Members want to take part in the debate, I do not intend to take up much time. I want to concentrate on a number of issues that the Bill does not address at all.
What is to happen to consumer and trading standards in Strathclyde? We have one of the best consumer groups in the country. Strathclyde's consumer and trading standards department is one of the country's largest and most effective. Last year alone, it dealt with more than 250,000 inquiries. How will the new authorities maintain this capability? The size of the Strathclyde region provides economies of scale that give the consumer and trading standards department unparalleled clout as a consumer watchdog. Without the benefits of size and the corresponding strategic role, it is unlikely that the department's success will be maintained by 12 smaller authorities. Last year, the department helped consumers to recover almost £2 million from unscrupulous traders.
There are 15 money advice centres throughout the region. These provide advice and support for people struggling with debt. The department deals with £1 million of consumer debt each year. Its specialist car fraud unit is unique. That unit is currently investigating 1,300 cases involving alleged car clockers, thereby ensuring value for car buyers, as well as protection for legitimate second-hand


car dealers. It is estimated that such fraud costs Strathclyde consumers more than £10 million a year. What is to happen in that area?
Blindcraft—the largest sheltered workshop in Europe —employs 134 blind and disabled people, as well as 87 support staff, and has an annual turnover approaching £4 million. Let us bear in mind what was done to the disabled last week. Once again, that lot opposite will bin them right on to the dole. Strathclyde region gives Blindcraft a subsidy of £1.8 million a year, without which the factory could not survive. In addition, the region is the biggest purchaser of Blindcraft merchandise, buying £2.6 million-worth—more than 50 per cent. of the factory's products—every year. How will Blindcraft survive if Strathclyde goes?
Another vital area that the Bill ignores—one about which I am concerned—is the work of the regional chemist, who is responsible for analysing food, water, consumer products, sewage and industrial waste and for examining other environmental situations. It would be very difficult to split the regional chemist's functions into 12 parts. The specialist equipment and experience could not be supported by smaller authorities. Strathclyde's laboratory—purpose-built recently at a cost of £4 million —is one of only four such laboratories in Scotland, and it is twice as large as all the others combined. On average, the department tests 75,000 samples a year. Apart from the analytical work, a team of trained scientists is on standby to deal with chemical and related emergency incidents. It is estimated that it would cost the 12 smaller authorities an extra £8 million to maintain the current level of service.
Like almost all other Opposition Members, I believe that the Government have got it wrong. What is being done is vindictive. It is disgraceful to dismantle a system that has been working. I am convinced that the smaller authorities will not be able to deliver services of the excellence that has been known in Scotland. It is a disgrace that one of the most successful authorities ever seen in Britain—the one in Strathclyde—is being dismantled. Other hon. Members will be able to speak with authority about the areas that they represent. The one about which I am most concerned is Strathclyde, on whose authority I served with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson). There, I was aware of the provision of excellent services and of the commitment not just of councillors but of officers.
What the Government are doing will be of no help to the elderly, the unemployed, the disabled or industrial concerns. How do they think it will help the people of Scotland? Why do they think we need it? I do not know, and I do not believe that the Government have the answer. Perhaps the number of Tory supporters in work will be increased. Quangos will be stuffed with Tory failed business men making a few bucks at the expense of the many people thrown on to the dole. It is quite clear that, as a result of this measure, many local authority workers will lose their jobs, even though the services that they have been providing will continue to be needed.
We have heard a great deal about water. In this respect, the people of Scotland overwhelmingly reject what the Government are doing. There is no question about that. The Strathclyde referendum should have been a warning to the Government to stop, listen to the people, think and review. They have not done that. They are still blundering along the road. They are still talking about quangos and about appointing placemen to try to run the water

authorities. Scotland needs investment in sewerage and in water supplies. The cash should come from central Government. This is what we pay taxes for. People expect to be able to drink clear, fresh water, and they expect sewage to be treated. They do not expect rubbish to be dumped along the road, as is happening in Britain at present.
I want to make a lighthearted but none the less sincere comment. The Secretary of State and his cohorts are the Jack and Jill of Scottish politics, especially when it comes to water:

"Jack and Jill went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water;
Jack fell down and broke his crown,
And Jill came tumbling after."

Ministers should consider what they are giving to the people of Scotland—a crass and empty bucket. They are not providing anything to improve the quality of life or of water in Scotland. They are doing nothing to secure the delivery of services to the elderly and others badly in need or to youngsters at school. Tonight, we should be debating improvements for the people of Scotland, rather than something that will damage them.

Mr. Michael Connarty: When my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) mentioned English Members we were joined by a few. I thought that they were taking an interest in local government, but it is obvious from their chatter that the Tea Room is full and that they cannot find anywhere else to carry on their conversations. If the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) were to listen, he might find out something about the idiocy that the Government are trying to perpetrate in Scotland and might bring it to the attention of people in the Lancashire constituency that he currently represents.
I should like to make one positive comment before dealing with the substance of the Bill. It is gratifying that the Secretary of State amended schedule 13 to include the provisions of section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to cover the quangos and other bodies that are being set up. It seems that people of all races in Scotland are to be equally abused by the Bill, without discrimination.
I do not mind ideology. But I have heard some distasteful Tory speeches tonight based on distortion. Those distortions will not sit well with the people of Scotland, who know that they are distortions. The Bill's main problem is that it is like an idiot's plan for local government. If one gave a child with no learning ability a set of building blocks on local government and asked him to put it together he might come up with something similar to what the Government have come up with. The Bill is a dislocated series of errors based on prejudices and boundary readjustments to suit the Tory party. It is a dog's breakfast—to use a good Scots phrase—but no dog would swallow it and nor will the people of Scotland.
We were told by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that political advisers were involved in putting the Bill together. The Government should check whether those advisers were on their side, because the Bill is one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation for the Conservative party. The regional elections were only the beginning of the demise of the Tory party based on that piece of Government stupidity.
The Bill is like a jigsaw puzzle that someone buys at a car boot sale, only to find, on opening the box, that half the pieces are missing. We do not know what is to happen to special education or the concessionary fares system. We do not know where the water boards will get their money. We have heard hints that the £3 billion allocated over 15 years from the public sector borrowing requirement may be withdrawn. That should worry people as they do not know how much in water and sewerage charges will have to be paid by the consumer for capital works. We do not know how the joint boards and the loyalties of those who sit on them will work out. We do not know whether people will receive fair allocations across all parts of the joint board areas. Half the pieces of the jigsaw are missing, just as half the Ministers' logic was missing during every debate of our 179 hours of Committee.
Perhaps we should be thankful. In my first speech on the Bill, I said to the Government that if I wanted to be partisan I would encourage them to go ahead with the proposals, which would be disastrous for them. If the Government do not think that the regional council elections showed that I and other hon. Members who said similar things were correct, they must be living in a different political world from mine. Perhaps we should thank the Government for sacrificing their majority on the altar of their ideology. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) were a symbol of what the Government meant, he would symbolise a Spartan end, with Conservative Members standing until they were slaughtered one by one. We know that the Secretary of State will not be a Spartan; he will sneak off down south to join his friends in the Conservative party in England whom he is currently serving. I remember the glory days when he said what he would do for the revival of the Conservative party in Scotland. All I say to him is, "Keep it up Ian, keep it up."
The problem is that the people of Scotland will suffer because of the Government's ideology. They will suffer because the weak will not be cared for as local authorities care for them at present. The authorities will have to try to make up the resources as they will have lost between £365 million and £720 million because of this stupid exercise. The Secretary of State, Ministers and advisers were unable to answer the accusation of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy about the cost of this stupid Bill.
The most needy people—those in community care who are already suffering—will be cast out of national health service hospitals into private hospitals and nursing homes. Only the local authorities will stand between them and dire poverty. They will suffer, as will those young people who had a quality future ahead of them, which had been worked for by the regional authorities. They will find themselves in small authorities without resources. The quality of the future of those young people will be much reduced.
The people of Scotland will make the Conservative party pay dearly for the proposals—not the Conservative party in England. I do not mind the fact that the hon. Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) are not present now, as they were in Committee. It was not the Conservatives from England who kept the Government's majority. As the majority of the Committee was reduced to one, it would have taken only one hon. Member—the hon. Member for Tayside,

North (Mr. Walker)—to be honest with his conscience and stand with the people of Scotland instead of the Government. It would have taken the hon. Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), for Aberdeen, South or for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch)—just one of those Conservative Scottish Members—to cross the Floor. I do not believe the blandishments of the Scottish National party that it was the English who kept the majority—

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Connarty: No, I shall not give way.
If just one of the Conservative Scottish Members had crossed the Floor, it would have given the people of Scotland the chance to break this poisoned chalice. Instead, those hon. Members forced the people of Scotland to drink from it. As a result, those hon. Members will lose their seats.

Mr. John McAllion: I shall be brief —I have to be as there are just five minutes remaining before the Front-Bench spokesmen start their speeches. In the short time available, I want to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland, not on anything that he has said today or done in relation to the Bill but on the fact that last Saturday he had the rare privilege of presenting the Scottish cup to Dundee United when the club won it for the first time in its history, in a magnificent victory over Glasgow Rangers.When the official party was presented to the teams before the kick-off, the Secretary of State had the rare distinction of being booed more loudly by the crowd than Mr. Jim Farry of the Scottish Football Association. Anyone who is booed by a Hampden crown more loudly than Jim Farry is in serious trouble. Hampden had not seen anything like it since Baroness Thatcher came to present the cup at the height of the poll tax fiasco.
The Government should take on board the fact that the argument does not just take place inside the Chamber: it rages back in Scotland. The arrogance that they have shown to the Scottish people time and again results in booing and in the sort of treatment that they receive every time they show their face north of the border. The message for the Conservative Members is that Scotland does not want them—people in Scotland have had enough of them over the past 15 to 16 years. Everyone in Scotland looks forward to the day when we can have a Tory-free Scotland, with a Scottish Parliament and self-determination for our own country.
The Secretary of State's speech was amusing in those parts where he did not intend it to be. One of his funniest lines was when he said that the Bill had caused many problems—of course, it has. First, it caused the collapse of Tory support in the opinion polls in Scotland once Scottish people realised what the Bill was about. The Strathclyde water referendum created problems for the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who found that 90 per cent. of their own constituents were opposed to what the Tory party was proposing in the Bill.
In the local government elections on 5 May, the Tories were pushed not into fourth place in Scottish politics but into fifth place—behind the independents mentioned by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch). They were beaten by the Communists in Fife. Communist


candidates have a better chance of being elected in Scotland than Tory candidates. I have been a great supporter of the tradition in Fife of electing Communist councillors as I think that they have done a marvellous job on Fife regional council.
The Secretary of State said that he had started out three years ago on a quest to achieve what he called all-purpose local authorities. Who on earth can believe the nonsense that what are being created north of the border are all-purpose authorities? Water and sewerage—one of the main services for which local government is responsible —is being taken away from local authorities in Scotland. No single-tier authority anywhere in Scotland will control the police and fire services—the joint boards will do that. Dundee will not be able to determine the level of policing in Dundee because it will be determined by the majority in Perth, Kinross and Angus, who will decide where the resources are to go within the joint board in Tayside. The same is true for all the social and education services, which will have to be provided by joint committees. The Bill is not creating all-purpose local authorities; the purpose of the Bill is to strip local authorities of their current powers. Everyone in Scotland understands that only too well.
The Minister said that a number of principles underlined the national boundary decisions and the shape of the new single-tier councils in Scotland. The principle that underlined the new boundaries was gerrymandering, which we have seen in other parts of the United Kingdom. In Westminster council—in this very district—the Tory council drove out council tenants and the homeless in order to make way for the well-heeled and better-off Tory voters to take over their accommodation in Westminster. The strategy was targeted at the marginal areas to ensure that the Tories hung on to power in Westminster—the same is happening in Scotland.
I joined Tayside regional council in 1984 when it was the jewel in the Tory crown in Scotland, and 28 of the 46 seats were safely in Tory hands. It was unthinkable that Tayside region should ever drop out of control of the Tory party. I spoke only two weeks ago to John Riddle-Webster, an ex-councillor from Tayside, who first stood for election in 1986. He said that the Tories in Tayside were discussing the forthcoming local election and it never entered their heads that they could possibly lose control of Tayside. He said that they were deciding who would deal with what convenorship once the election was safely out of the way. A Labour administration was elected to Tayside regional council in 1986 and again in 1990. More recently, it elected an SNP administration. The Tories have been reduced to just four seats on what was once the best Tory council in Scotland.
Will the Conservative party realise for once that what the Opposition say about the iniquities in the Bill is not just rhetoric. Nobody in Scotland wants the Bill—not even the Tory party in Scotland; the Westminster party does not represent its friends north of the border. The real Tories in Scotland do not want this nonsense; nobody in Scotland wants it and that is why everyone in the House should vote against it.

Mr. Henry McLeish: Some interesting parallels can be drawn from the debate. On the Government Benches we see a party heading for defeat, oblivion and opposition. My colleagues are quite buoyed

by the experiences of Committee, Report and Third Reading. The Bill simply will not survive in any particular form in the months and years that lie ahead. We look forward with enthusiasm when we come into Government to dealing with the residual effects of this particularly nasty measure.
It is important to nail some of the smears and distortions thrown around tonight about Strathclyde by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). It is unforgivable that when the Prime Minister, in that half-baked speech at conference described Strathclyde as a monstrosity, he gave a lead to all Conservatives, whether in the House or in Scotland, to decry that public authority on every occasion.
Mention has been made of the Halcrow report on Strathclyde water. The report was favourable to Strathclyde and stated that Strathclyde could stand examination with any water authority in England or Wales and, more to the point, supply water at half the cost.
Let us also nail another smear tonight—that Strathclyde tried to suppress the report. It was quite disgraceful that on the radio this morning the Under-Secretary should make the same smear. It is simply not true that Strathclyde suppressed the report. There was a press conference and it was available to all concerned. We should have some humility from the hon. Member for Ayr, who made that bitter and ill-informed remark.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: No. The hon. Gentleman had enough time to smear Strathclyde and does not deserve the opportunity to speak again.
It is also interesting that the Secretary of State for Scotland has now divorced himself completely from the reality of Scottish politics. We can debate whether that is because he is preparing to move to a more lucrative position in the Tory party down south, but it is clear that the Secretary of State distanced himself from the Committee and then wanted very little to do with the Bill when it was being debated in Scotland. It is quite clear to us all that the Secretary of State has run out of enthusiasm for this particularly pernicious piece of legislation.
It is also important to say that the Secretary of State has tried to pretend to the Scottish people that the Bill is all about all-purpose authorities. When we heard that Clackmannan district council, with 47,000 people, is to become one of the new unitary authorities it became clear that the Bill had moved from all-purpose to no-purpose authorities. It is simply disgraceful to ask a council with so few people to do so much on behalf of the electors it wishes to serve. That underlines the fact that the Opposition have always been right to say that the Bill is about gerrymandering and boundaries with no regard whatsoever to the services that are being provided.
There are also some other considerations worth repeating as the Bill ends its Third Reading. There remains no consensus for the measure. The Government may argue that there is, but in Scotland there is not. There has been no commission. The Government have been unwilling to appoint one because they lack the guts to test their crazy policies against any objective criteria. We have had no constitutional change. We shall deliver a Scottish Parliament. That will be the context within which we shall seriously examine services in Scotland and the people who deliver them.
Of course we have no assessment of costs. It is a ludicrous position. Hundreds of millions of pounds could still be spent on policies that nobody wants from a Government who will not provide high investment to services that are badly needed, such as community care and fighting crime. It is an act of monumental irresponsibility and it lies fairly and squarely with the Secretary of State for Scotland who took on this madcap proposal and is willing to see it through, even to the destruction of the Conservative party which will surely follow as a result of the process being completed in the House and then moving to another place.
The Government cannot stomach the fact that there is no commitment from the Scottish people. We have heard so much drivel about people in Scotland wanting this reorganisation. We have heard about councillors clamouring at the Minister's door to fix their own areas, but a reorganisation that does not have the support of the people does not deserve to survive, and this one will not survive.
The Opposition are concerned that the Bill has ignored services completely. Life and death services have never figured in the minds of Government Ministers or Tory Back Benchers. It is all about beating a path to the Secretary of State's door saying, "We will slavishly accept the wisdom of this gerrymandering political exercise with no regard to the high-quality services which are being delivered in many areas."
Some 300,000 employees will now find that, as Government did not have the guts to transfer them on the face of the Bill, they may end up in court to determine their future because the Government have also ignored European legislation. The Bill is disgraceful on two points: there is no transfer and no simple adherence to European directives.
The hallmark of the mess has been the Government's commitment to butcher the delivery of water and sewerage services in Scotland. We have heard many words spoken in the House and elsewhere about water. They were given the opportunity after they heard the opinion polls, the Strathclyde referendum and the results of the local government elections, but the Government are so removed from reality that they will take no opportunity to secure their own political future and instead treat the people of Scotland with bitter contempt on those important issues.
We can tell the Government this evening that Scots do not want three super-quangos. We want no halfway house. Despite the bleatings of Tory Back Benchers, they know that water is an albatross round their necks. We shall ensure that it will remain an albatross until and during the next election. They can bleat all they wish, but we shall not let them forget it.
The Bill has also been a root and branch attack on democracy. My hon. Friends have talked about quangos. Scotland will be represented by 1,200 elected people, but 5,000 quango members, meeting in private to do the dirty work of the Secretary of State, will deal with £7 billion worth of expenditure in Scotland.
It is an insult to the House. We pride ourselves on being elected to Westminster to enact legislation that is in the interests of the people. The Government are now hell-bent on ensuring that what they cannot win by the ballot box they will win by the appointment of quangos to every organisation throughout the length and breadth of

Scotland. On behalf of the Scottish people, we shall have none of it. The Government stand condemned and isolated on the Bill and have shown no remorse whatever. They are adding insult to injury by dismantling local government and passing services over to the friends and supporters of their party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) highlighted another fact. Last week, on Report, we gave the Government the opportunity to put the record straight on seat belts, but what did they do? They brought 250 Tories Members into the House to vote against improving the safety of vulnerable children travelling in minibuses and coaches in Scotland. That can be with their conscience, but my hon. Friend is also right to suggest that we will push until the measure is implemented and Scots can travel safely throughout the country.
The Tories are in a mess in Scotland, but are unconcerned. The Bill is a mess, but the Tories are unconcerned. What they should be concerned about is that the timetable for this ludicrous proposal is also in crisis. In another place, the Bill will be delayed. The prospect of having elections less than a year from now is simply outrageous by any standard of democratic traditions. Let us warn the Government, before the Minister replies, that the story does not end in the House this evening. We shall step up the campaign vigorously throughout Scotland. We expect local authorities not to have anything to do with this legislation.
The Government should remember that, until they get this bad Bill and all the required regulations that go with it through in November, Scotland will have nothing to do with it. That is absolutely right. Parliament and the people should now combine to delay, derail and, ultimately, destroy the Bill. It is not in the interests of Scotland, services or local government. That is why my hon. Friends will vote against its Third Reading tonight.

8 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): May I first say to the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will be grateful for the sympathy that they expressed?
A number of genuine points were made during the debate, amid a certain amount of the usual ranting and raving from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) rightly raised the point about Blindcraft. I can assure him that I have met representatives from Blindcraft, with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). I hope that any difficulties will be resolved. The hon. Gentleman asked about the future of the Strathclyde regional chemist laboratories, but the point is that there are only four such laboratories in Scotland, serving all 65 councils in Scotland. That is an excellent example of a joint arrangement that works. There is nothing new or radical in suggesting, as we are, that, under the new structure, local authorities must co-operate in joint arrangements. That happens now.
Following the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton, there were four excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). A general theme


underlined those speeches. The House spent an immense amount of time, rightly and properly, on the Bill. Some 177 hours were spent in Committee and that, as my hon. Friends pointed out, meant that many of the amendments that were tabled were accepted by the Government. The changes that were made to the boundaries in Committee all resulted from approaches to the Government, which were on either an all-party or a non-party basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North rightly referred to the need to look carefully at the most cost-effective way of delivering services in future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr and the hon. Members for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) and for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) referred to boundary questions in relation to the proposals for Lanarkshire. I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Clydesdale attacked the proposals as gerrymandering, because he came to see me, as part of a delegation, to express the hope that the Government would not change the proposals for South Lanarkshire. I was extremely glad to confirm that we were persuaded by the strength of the arguments made by the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Hood: I am sure that the Minister would not like to mislead the House. Does he agree that the hon. Member for Clydesdale facilitated the meeting for his local authority to come down and put its case, and that there is a marked difference between that and what the Minister said?

Mr. Stewart: There were two meetings.

Mr. Hood: indicated dissent.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman, as I recall, came along with his hon. Friends to a second meeting, in which he agreed with the case that the Government were making for South Lanarkshire. If I have misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman, of course I shall withdraw that, but it was certainly the case that a number of his hon. Friends clearly supported the case for South Lanarkshire.

Mr. Salmond: May I examine the Minister's credentials, as he is one of the contenders for the crown of thorns in the Scottish Office? Has he ever personally believed in water privatisation? If so, when did he stop?

Mr. Stewart: I am glad to respond to that point. I was going to come to it in a moment or two, because I thought that the hon. Member for Hamilton alleged that I had publicly supported the privatisation of water and sewerage in Scotland. I have never publicly supported—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I have never supported the privatisation of water and sewerage in Scotland. The hon. Member for Hamilton made great play of the fact that the privatisation option for water and sewerage used rather more lines in the consultation paper than the option that was eventually adopted by the Government. That proves nothing. The ten commandments were pretty short, but nevertheless they are a great deal more important than many other passages of literature.

Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: No. I have only a limited amount of time available.
Opposition Members talked about gerrymandering and the cost-effectiveness of the new councils. I have quotation after quotation from individual Labour-led councils in Scotland, not universally but across the central belt and

elsewhere. The hon. Member for Hamilton and others referred to Clackmannan. I do not know how much of the Clackmannan case he wishes me to read out, but it is a Labour-led district council, which made a very clear case for its authority to be a unitary authority.
I find it astonishing that the Labour party should have so little confidence in Labour councillors and Labour councils up and down the length and breadth of Scotland that it derides the cases made by Clackmannan, Falkirk, West Lothian—the authority of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—and East Lothian. We responded to the cases that were made by Labour council after Labour council.

Mr. Dalyell: West Lothian is not a Labour authority, but will the Minister answer the substantial question of whether there will be a Lords amendment on Queensferry?

Mr. Stewart: That, of course, is entirely a matter for individual Members of the other place.
The key charge of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was that the timetable has slipped. I am sorry to disappoint him. That is wishful thinking on his part. I assure the House that the timetable for local government reorganisation under the Bill remains as planned. The hon. Gentleman is whistling in the wind—

Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: No, I really do not have time.
The hon. Gentleman is whistling in the wind if he dares to suggest otherwise. The Bill is on track and on time; nor will it be moved by the programme of non-co-operation to which the hon. Member for Fife, Central referred positively, but which the hon. Member for Hamilton rightly suggested had not delayed the Bill's passage or the reorganisation programme.
As I have said, the case for the Bill has been advanced over an extremely long period, and it has been presented powerfully and effectively by my hon. Friends tonight. Opposition Members do not know what their policy is, but it is to hand over local government to some other body. That is the policy of the hon. Member for Hamilton: he will stand at this Dispatch Box and have no responsibility whatever for local government policy. The Opposition have no policy to put before the House, as they had no policy to put before the Standing Committee that considered the Bill in such detail.
I commend the Bill whole-heartedly to the House as a blueprint for effective, accountable, stable local government in Scotland—not just for the next two years, but into the next century.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 253.

Division No. 257]
[8.12 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Ancram, Michael
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aspinwall, Jack
Body, Sir Richard


Atkins, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas






Booth, Hartley
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hague, William


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nicholas
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butler, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Heald, Oliver


Carttiss, Michael
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hendry, Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, Sir David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Elletson, Harold
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lidington, David


Faber, David
Lightbown, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luff, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Madel, Sir David


Fry, Sir Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gallie, Phil
Malone, Gerald


Gardiner, Sir George
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)





Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spring, Richard


Mates, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Steen, Anthony


Merchant, Piers
Stephen, Michael


Mills, Iain
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Allan


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Streeter, Gary


Moate, Sir Roger
Sumberg, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sweeney, Walter


Moss, Malcolm
Sykes, John


Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thomason, Roy


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thurnham, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Patnick, Irvine
Tredinnick, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trend, Michael


Pawsey, James
Trotter, Neville


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walden, George


Richards, Rod
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Robathan, Andrew
Ward, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waterson, Nigel


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whittingdale, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Tom
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Soames, Nicholas



Speed, Sir Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spencer, Sir Derek
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Spink, Dr Robert



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Betts, Clive


Adams, Mrs Irene
Blair, Tony


Ainger, Nick
Blunkett, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boateng, Paul


Allen, Graham
Boyes, Roland


Alton, David
Bradley, Keith


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Austin-Walker, John
Burden, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Byers, Stephen


Barnes, Harry
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beggs, Roy
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cann, Jamie


Bennett, Andrew F.
Chisholm, Malcolm


Benton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)






Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Hardy, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Henderson, Doug


Coffey, Ann
Hendron, Dr Joe


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoyle, Doug


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Davidson, Ian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Hutton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Ingram, Adam


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Dixon, Don
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Janner, Greville


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Enright, Derek
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Etherington, Bill
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Jowell, Tessa


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Fisher, Mark
Keen, Alan


Flynn, Paul
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Khabra, Piara S.


Foulkes, George
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fraser, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Fyfe, Maria
Kirkwood, Archy


Galbraith, Sam
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Galloway, George
Lewis, Terry


Gapes, Mike
Litherland, Robert


Garrett, John
Livingstone, Ken


George, Bruce
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Gerrard, Neil
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Loyden, Eddie


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Godsiff, Roger
McAllion, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
McAvoy, Thomas


Gordon, Mildred
McCartney, Ian


Graham, Thomas
McCrea, Rev William


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McFall, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McKelvey, William


Grocott, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gunnell, John
McLeish, Henry


Hall, Mike
McMaster, Gordon





McNamara, Kevin
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McWilliam, John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Madden, Max
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Rooker, Jeff


Mahon, Alice
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mallon, Seamus
Rowlands, Ted


Mandelson, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Marek, Dr John
Salmond, Alex


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Maxton, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meacher, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meale, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Milburn, Alan
Snape, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spellar, John


Morgan, Rhodri
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Stevenson, George


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stott, Roger


Mowlam, Marjorie
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mudie, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Turner, Dennis


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Tyler, Paul


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


O'Hara, Edward
Wallace, James


Olner, William
Walley, Joan


O'Neill, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wareing, Robert N


Parry, Robert
Watson, Mike


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Andrew


Pickthall, Colin
Wicks, Malcolm


Pike, Peter L.
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pope, Greg
Wilson, Brian


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wise, Audrey


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Worthington, Tony


Prescott, John
Wray, Jimmy


Primarolo, Dawn
Wright, Dr Tony


Purchase, Ken
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Radice, Giles



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Noes:


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Rendel, David
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.
The House has become too familiar with the need, year after year, to renew the temporary provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1991 and its predecessor. The Act has a five-year lifespan. Therefore, unless it is wholly re-enacted before August 1996, its provisions will cease to have effect completely. By then, I shall have published a report from Mr. John Rowe, Queen's counsel, following a fundamental review of the Act's provisions and their operation, which I have already commissioned and which is due to begin next month. We need immediately, however, to note that the Act's temporary provisions—as defined in section 69—lapse on 15 June unless the order is approved. Regretfully, I must advise the House that their renewal is certainly required.
I intend to leave as much time as possible for hon. and right hon. Members to speak. Therefore, some points on which I do not touch, as well as those raised in this debate, may fall to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to deal with when he replies or in correspondence.
We already have to assist us Mr. Rowe's first report, published on 16 May. I am most grateful to him for taking on this responsibility, in succession to Lord Colville QC. In endorsing his conclusion that the powers conferred by the Act remain necessary for a further year, it is right that I should express the Government's regret that this should be so. Yet in asking the security forces to uphold the rule of law, it is our duty to see to it that the law itself is sensibly adapted in response to the challenge thrown down by the terrorists.
This is a matter of great importance to the Government and, accordingly, we very carefully keep the law under review. Against the need to meet that challenge, we have to balance the need to maintain the essential fairness of the law recognising, among other considerations, that unfair law, perceived to be oppressive, does not gain public acceptance and soon becomes law that works against its purpose.
I deal now with some of the recent atrocities of those who bear the responsibility for the continuing need for these provisions. Since the last renewal of the Act, 84 people have died as a result of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland. Eleven were members of the security forces, and 32 of those killed have been murdered this year alone. The memory of atrocities such as the Shankill road bombing and the Greysteel murders in October last year remain etched vividly on all our minds. However, every bit as evil, although less widely recalled, are the individual murders which leave their indelible imprint on shattered families and fearful communities.
The past few weeks, and indeed the past few days, have seen hideous examples: the young soldier killed in Keady, County Armagh on his first tour of duty; the elderly woman shot dead near Dungannon and the young students murdered in Armagh; the Northern Ireland Electricity cleaner shot dead in front of his wife on his way to work,

and the police station cleaner killed by a car bomb that injured his wife and son and placed his three-year old daughter's life in the balance; the abduction, so-called interrogation, and cold-blooded murder of a young Royal Irish soldier, and the killing of a 19-year-old security guard in Belfast. The callousness of those who carry out these and similar acts beggars description. It induces a cold determination in us all to eliminate such evil rather than waste time with the vocabulary of condemnation.
It is to meet the challenge presented by such crimes that we need to renew the temporary provisions of the Act. The Act provides modifications to the criminal justice system, including the mode of trial for terrorist-type offences; arrest, search and seizure powers for the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army; and covers certain specific offences such as belonging to a proscribed organisation. It also provides valuable powers directed against terrorist finances. It contains significant safeguards for those who may be affected by the special provisions.
It is also right, I think, to refer to the power to order executive detention. This power, although not currently in force, is retained in the Act. There is, the Government firmly believe, a need to retain it in the Act. If the extremity of circumstances should warrant it, we shall not shrink from activating it. To abandon it, as the Labour party has in the past so regrettably proposed, would be, in our view, an act of high irresponsibility. To vote against previous renewal orders for that purpose was always bad logic as well as bad judgment. The power to order detention can be removed only by primary legislation.
Legal provisions of this character are of themselves of course not enough to secure the Government's primary objective in Northern Ireland, which is the defeat and elimination of terrorism. However, they are shown by experience to give the RUC and the Army the capability to prevent and disrupt a great many attacks that would otherwise have occurred and to bring to justice, week in, week out, many of those responsible for terrorist crime.
I now give some examples of such operations, all drawn from the Belfast area. They are of a character replicated elsewhere in Northern Ireland. In February, a group of people was intercepted in east Belfast: two AKM rifles, a hand-gun and a MK15 coffee jar grenade were recovered and six people were subsequently charged with terrorist-related offences. The following day, a mortar was recovered from a house in north Belfast, preventing an attack on a nearby RUC station, and three men were charged in connection with the incident. More recently, the police searched a house in west Belfast and recovered weapons, sledge hammers and other terrorist equipment and made four arrests. Only last week, a man appeared in court charged under section 27 of the Act with directing a terrorist organisation. All these cases are, of course, now sub judice.
There has been, and will be, no relaxation in the security forces' efforts of this character.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I had hoped to leave time for hon. Members to speak. I shall give way, but it reduces the time available.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Secretary of State's giving way. I also appreciate and welcome those


illustrations of success, but is it possible to be told the number of occasions on which legislation against terrorist financing and the organising of terror has been used?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is used all the time. It is used to secure very considerable disruption of terrorist financing and of the vehicles by which it is sought to conceal the financing operations on which terrorism depends so heavily. There have been few prosecutions, and I think that that is the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. These cases take a very long time to prepare. If they were insufficiently prepared, the hon. Gentleman and others would be rightly critical of the failure that would result.
The scale of the remorseless erosion by the RUC of the paramilitary forces on both sides is not always recognised. Last year, 372 people were charged with terrorist offences. This year alone, 171 people have been charged, including more than 100 loyalists and 57 republicans. Persons who, after due process of law, may ultimately be convicted of terrorist offences are not some kind of political prisoner, of which we have none in our country. Their conduct is made criminal by the statute book or by the common law. The sentences that their conduct attracts will usually ensure that they stay in prison for many a long year. They are heavy sentences indeed.
Noting the scale of those highly significant and valuable successes, I therefore take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedicated work of the security forces. They face cruel and callous criminals who stop at nothing, including torture. They face them willingly, always acknowledging that they themselves must operate within the law. They know that, as the rule of law requires, their own actions will be carefully and impartially scrutinised by authorities that are independent of the Government. Immense discipline and restraint, as well as courage, are called for from the security forces—police and military—as well as from the prison service. For the very high standards that they achieve, I believe that they deserve our warm gratitude and admiration.
I refer now to the co-operation that the security forces receive from across the border. It is sometimes suggested that the quality of security co-operation with the Republic could be enhanced. Achieving the most effective security co-operation possible is vital to our joint opposition to terrorism. I am therefore glad to report to the House that the quality of the co-operation that we receive from the Republic is, in the words of our Chief Constable, "at an all-time high".
Throughout this year, the Garda Siochana on the ground has continued to make very significant finds of arms and munitions, has taken part in a number of co-ordinated operations and made arrests. This work is greatly appreciated. Both Governments, however, constantly strive to find ways of improving the effectiveness of security measures, through the mechanisms of the intergovernmental conference and elsewhere. As recent events have shown, the terrorist threat is not confined to the north, and the co-operation between the two police forces will continue to be two-way traffic.
I return to the legislation itself and to the general reports on facets of its operation that I have commissioned and already published. First, I refer to the holding centres and the question whether interviews with terrorist suspects should be recorded. The holding centres, or police offices, play a central part in bringing terrorists to justice; perhaps that is why they have attracted controversy in the past. We

want them to be demythologised. Accordingly, on 1 January this year, codes of practice concerning the detention and questioning of suspects came into effect under section 61 of the Act.
At the end of 1992, I appointed Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC as independent commissioner for the holding centres, which was a new post. I am most grateful to him for his diligent and inquiring work since then, as I am also to his deputy, Dr. Bill Norris. Sir Louis' first annual report to me, now published, is characteristically thoughtful and I am grateful for it. All should be pleased to note that he
found absolutely nothing that might give anyone the slightest cause for concern about the care and treatment of detainees held in the custody of uniformed officers of the RUC".
I shall now touch on some of the issues that Sir Louis raises. He advocates, as does Mr. Rowe, some form of audio or video recording of interviews. I readily acknowledge the strong arguments in favour of either video or audio recording. They have powerful judicial support, and hold out the prospects of some obvious and valuable advantages, not least in shortening or eliminating at trial challenges made to the authenticity of alleged confessions.
However, one of the key tests is whether it could be absolutely guaranteed that such a recording could not later come to be seen or heard by someone who had a punitive motive. I myself am not sure that such guarantee would be regarded by suspects as reliable. It is the strong view of Sir Hugh Annesley, who, as Chief Constable, is my principal security adviser, that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland any electronic recording of interviews would inhibit still further the chances of lawfully obtaining information that would lead to the conviction of terrorists or to the saving of other people's lives. I have discussed the matter with him at length, and I am not prepared to take a serious risk of that character. I am bound to attach special weight to the opinion of Sir Hugh Annesley, who leads the RUC with such distinction, and I am not currently persuaded to accept the proposal.
Sir Louis also made other recommendations. We are happy to accept his proposal to reorganise the medical services in the police offices. The proposal for a legal advice unit is also attractive, but that is not entirely ours to dispose. We have asked the Law Society of Northern Ireland, whose co-operation would be vital, for its views. I understand from Sir Louis that he wishes to progress his work on this issue still further. He intends, I believe, to produce a separate interim report on the proposal in the autumn; I look forward to that.
Sir Louis also criticises the physical conditions in Castlereagh. I have to agree that they are unsatisfactory, and I am aware that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland is actively pursuing a solution to the problem.
I now return to Mr. Rowe's report, and to complaints against the police and armed forces. Police officers and soldiers move and work in the community, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. It would be remarkable if there were not what Mr. Rowe describes as abrasive incidents. The security forces are trained to avoid them, but everyone is human and it is important that there should be sound mechanisms to deal with any complaint when one occurs.
For the police, there is the Independent Commission for Police Complaints, whose sixth annual report was published last week. The commission is a fully independent body, with wide-ranging powers, and is


acknowledged as a world leader. Its chairman, Mr. James Grew, is currently chairman of the international association of such organisations. That is a tribute not only to him but to the body over which he presides.
The Army, too, maintains extensive and sophisticated complaints procedures. At the end of 1992, I appointed, under section 60 of the Act, Mr. David Hewitt, an experienced and respected Belfast solicitor, to be independent assessor of military complaints procedures—another new post. His first annual report to me was published last month. I believe that now, for the first time, a thorough and impartial account of those mechanisms is in the public domain. With it came recommendations for improvement. The GOC, Sir Roger Wheeler, has said that he is examining these very carefully with a view to their implementation, and I look forward to having further discussions with him.
Mr. Rowe also draws attention to conflicting views on the law as it affects soldiers or police officers who have killed terrorists, or people believed to be terrorists. I know that many people, including some in eminent positions, regard the present law as unsatisfactory.
The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland has lent his support to a change in the law in a recent judgment upholding the conviction of a soldier for murder. Sir Brian Hutton, whose view naturally commands the highest respect, stated his belief that the law would be fairer if a conviction for manslaughter rather than murder were possible where a soldier or police officer had killed a person, not from an evil motive, but because, his duties having placed him on the scene armed with a weapon, he had reacted wrongly to a situation that suddenly confronted him.
Police officers and soldiers are required to operate in areas in Northern Ireland where there is a grave threat against them. They do that in order to uphold law and order and to protect the community. The fact that almost 1,000 members of the security forces have been killed during the current terrorist campaign is evidence enough of the risks that they face.
They are, in certain circumstances, under a duty to use their weapons for the protection of themselves or of others. They must make up their minds in a trice. In so doing, they are offered no more and no less protection under the law than that available to any citizen.
However, I think that such a change in the law would soon be criticised. It would be said that the Government were intent on protecting members of the security forces from facing the charge that they allegedly ought to face—that of murder. "One law for the security forces and another for the rest," would be the criticism. Yet it has always been the policy of successive Governments that members of the security forces should be bound by the ordinary criminal law. I believe that that is a sound principle, and one which attracts public confidence. After the most careful consideration, I do not find myself persuaded that the overall interests of justice would be served by a change of that character.
The Act needs to achieve a balance between safeguarding the rights of the individual and providing condign measures against terrorists and the organisations that sustain them. So, in the context of the debate, it is relevant to recall that the Chief Constable of the RUC has

put to me certain proposals for law reform. I have considered those most carefully, in consultation with the RUC and according to the criteria that I have mentioned. Naturally, I have also taken into account judicial opinion in Northern Ireland. I shall deal with those proposals briefly now.
I agree that we should make it easier for the police to obtain from suspects samples for forensic analysis. It is vital to be able to undertake DNA analysis, and by means of a Government amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, currently in another place, plucked hair will be classified beyond doubt as a non-intimate sample for the purposes of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. More work on forensic analysis generally is being undertaken in the context of the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice.
The Chief Constable believes that if means could be found of admitting in evidence the product of warranted interception of communications, obtained under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, that would valuably help to secure the conviction of some terrorists who might well otherwise go free. I have much sympathy with that idea. It is a serious and weighty argument, and one to which I and others need to give full and careful consideration. I am mindful also of the considerable success which has attended the use, notably in the United States, of wire-tap material.
However, the provisions of the 1985 Act were intended to maintain the complete secrecy of the system of organised interception. It was considered then that the system could be irrevocably damaged, both as a method of protecting national security and of dealing with serious crime. For example, in some circumstances, even to allow someone to discover that he was the subject of interception might make it impossible to pursue an investigation. Anything that disclosed the pattern of use of interception could also be damaging.
Accordingly, although the Government are not as yet persuaded that the case for change has been made out, we are continuing to examine most carefully both the way in which cases develop, and the balance of advantage and disadvantage in any changes, in the uniquely difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland.
Sir Hugh Annesley has further suggested that a suspect's so-called right to silence be amended by the adaptation and extension to all terrorist crime of the provisions concerning authorised investigators contained in the recently introduced section 57 and schedule 5 of the Act. That would make it a criminal offence for a suspect to refuse to answer questions in certain circumstances. The powers in question derive from provisions designed for use against fraud. They enable the RUC to obtain the expertise of particular individuals for the skilled questioning of suspects in complex fraud cases, with criminal sanctions for unreasonably refusing to answer. After careful consultation about the proposal to extend them, I do not believe that so important a change in a basic principle of our criminal justice system should be commended to Parliament.
A further proposal would significantly narrow a court's discretion to acquit in cases of possession. That would involve amending the Act to require the court to make the necessary assumption of knowledge in such cases unless it were shown to be incorrect or the court were satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice. I am, however, not convinced that it would achieve the desired effect, and


I am concerned that it might also increase the risk of miscarriages of justice. I therefore believe that the potential benefit would be outweighed by the practical and theoretical drawbacks.
The people of Northern Ireland continue to face, with great steadfastness and resolution, evil campaigns of violence that are pursued with political motivation. They not only need to have confidence in the resolution, fairness, impartiality, courage and sensitivity of our security forces and those qualities in our security policy; they also need to have confidence in the effectiveness of the law with which the security forces are called on to counter the men of violence. As Mr. Rowe says in his report, the community's right to be free from terrorism is as important as any individual's rights, and that well describes the competing interests which the House must bring into judicious balance.
I greatly hope that the Opposition will nerve themselves in the interests of Northern Ireland not to vote against the order. The iniquitous crimes of terrorists continue to necessitate the renewal of the Act's temporary provisions, and I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The renewal of the emergency powers has, sadly, become an annual ritual in the House. What were originally intended as temporary measures have now been in existence for 21 years. Powers that can be justified in an emergency cannot be justified as a permanent feature of the criminal justice system in a liberal democratic society, and that is why we examine them each year.
This debate provides an opportunity for the House to assess the security situation in Northern Ireland and the Government's new initiatives. It also provides an opportunity to comment on some of the interesting statements made by the Secretary of State about some of the Chief Constable's requests for additional powers.
Despite the joint declaration and the strong momentum behind the peace process, the level of violence has escalated recently. The rate of killings in Northern Ireland this year is as depressingly high as it was in 1993. No community in Northern Ireland has escaped the impact of paramilitary activities.
There can be no excuse for such callous disregard for human life. It should not be forgotten that we would not be here debating this renewal order if all the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland brought the killings to an end, with the permanent cessation of violence. We regret that the call of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party for the loyalist paramilitaries to end their campaign has not received an immediate and positive response.
In response to Sinn Fein's questions on the joint declaration, the Government made four important points. First, the Government of Ireland Act 1920 can be on the negotiating table; secondly, no party has a veto over Government policy; thirdly, there is no need for Sinn Fein to accept the joint declaration, only to renounce the use of violence for political ends; and, fourthly, there is recognition of Sinn Fein's electoral mandate. Given that response by the Government, there can be no justification, if ever there was—which I deny—for continued IRA violence. They should lay down their arms and come to the conference table.
Like the Secretary of State, we express our support and admiration for the work done by the security forces, the prison service and the judiciary, as they seek impartially to uphold the rule of law. Those men and women deserve acknowledgement for coping with the continuing stress and danger associated with their work—and, indeed, sadly, after they have ceased their full-time service. We also welcome the continuing high level of co-operation between the RUC and the Garda Siochana.
In its present form, the emergency provisions Act confers on the security forces wide-ranging powers which represent a marked departure from the usually accepted standards in a democracy. The Labour party recognises the justification for some emergency powers to counter the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. However, we cannot support this order while the power of internment remains on the statute book and the Government still refuse to implement measures recommended by their own advisers and bodies, such as the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
The power of internment is an infringement of fundamental human rights. It is totally unacceptable. The power of the Executive to imprison without charge, let alone trial, undermines the founding principles of any democratic country. The legitimacy of the state is based on the rule of law. The power of internment grants the Executive the right to suspend the rule of law. Such a right weakens the integrity of the state, and thereby strengthens the terrorists.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: Not at the moment.
Speculation after every terrorist atrocity over the possibility of the reintroduction of internment only fuels paramilitary violence and suggests that somehow there is a quick fix—an immediate solution to a continuing problem. Further, because of the history of internment, it heightens the levels of alienation and distrust, which again plays into the hands of the paramilitaries. The Government should take heed of Sir George Baker, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and Lord Colville, and repeal the power.
This debate takes place against the background of four major reports—two by John Rowe QC on the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act, and the annual reports of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, the independent commissioner for the holding centres, and David Hewitt, the independent assessor of military complaints procedures.
Fears concerning possible abuses at the holding centres have contributed to disillusionment with the process of justice in Northern Ireland. We welcome the fact that, in his report, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper recognises the need for proper safeguards to be introduced in order to build confidence in the security forces and to provide police officers with protection against false allegations of physical and verbal harassment.
Yesterday, I visited the Castlereagh holding centre. I am indebted to the RUC officers for their the courtesy and help in explaining their procedures and practices to me. I looked at the battery of small television screens monitoring the interview rooms. I think that there were only eight


interviews taking place in this instance with 16 screens to be monitored. I therefore concur with Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's assessment:
If there is, at any one time, more than a handful of interviews taking place—and frequently there are as many as eight to a dozen in action—it is difficult to understand how any inspector of police, however vigilant and undistracted by other duties … can be alerted to an untoward incident which might take place in the interview room.
Sir Loius Blom-Cooper argues that, as a result,
it is well nigh impossible to monitor the screens effectively".
He therefore concludes that a system should be introduced whereby
every interview would be tape-recorded, both audio and visual, but particularly the former".
I listened with care to what the Secretary of State said about the views of the Chief Constable. He must keep those views very much in mind. Sometimes, chief constables must be overruled, and this is one of those occasions when that is necessary, both in the interests of apparent justice and in the interests of defeating terrorism.
Sir Louis Blom-Cooper joins a wide body of opinion in favour of some method of recording interviews at holding centres. For example, John Rowe states:
I hold the firm view that interviews with terrorist suspects should be recorded by audio tape.
He also accepts that video recording is "desirable" in certain circumstances.
The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has already supported the introduction of silent video recording, and is considering the call for audio recording. Lord Colville also called for the introduction of video recording.
Sir Louis Blom-Cooper outlined a system to protect tape recordings of interviews. His proposal that the disclosure of tapes should be a judicial decision is in line with what Labour has argued. If such a procedure is felt to be undesirable, however, it should still be possible for the Government—despite the Chief Constable—to accept in principle the introduction of audio and video recording and to establish a small working party representing the Bar, the RUC, the Law Society and the judiciary, to propose a system that would be satisfactory.
I accept what Sir Hugh Annesley said about guaranteeing security, but nothing is secure in that system, and audio recording of terrorist interrogations takes place in Britain, where we do not find that too strong an argument against it. We also know that procedures are being considered in Britain, in principle, for the introduction of video safeguards again for the interrogation of terrorists; therefore, guaranteeing security does not seem to be a powerful argument in Britain.
In Paddington Green police station, all interviews of terrorist suspects are audio-taped and soon will be video-taped. If it is possible to ensure reasonable safety in Great Britain, I fail to see why it cannot be done in Northern Ireland.
There has been a change in the RUC's argument, as the Secretary of State reported. Its earlier argument would have been that, if the tapes fell into the wrong hands, people could find out sources and hints of intelligence, or that sources of information might dry up. In fact, the RUC defeats that argument by saying, in answer to criticisms on other matters, that, once a detainee is released into an ordinary prison, he or she is debriefed.
Two other main points arise from Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's argument. First, as the Secretary of State said, his proposal for a permanent, full-time legal advice unit for detainees in holding centres deserves further consideration, and I am glad to hear that Sir Louis will give it. It is clear, however, that whatever unit is established would have to be run independently by the Law Society and be seen to be independent of the Government.
Membership of such a unit would in no sense have to be restricted to exclude certain solicitors. It would have one advantage, in that, if it were adopted, it would be right to expect an end to the use of 48-hour deferrals of access to a solicitor. That represents a severe curtailment of the fundamental right of access to legal advice. If such a unit were established, although solicitors would go into the compound to interview, their permanent office should be outside, as a symbol of the fact that they are independent of Government.
I am also concerned about persistent rumours of unsubstantiated allegations that certain solicitors pass on information that they receive from their clients to paramilitary organisations. Those insinuations may bring the authorities into conflict with United Nations basic principles on the role of lawyers, which state among other things:
Lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions.
If such actions are taking place, evidence should be supplied to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as it would be a criminal offence, or to the professional conduct committee of the Law Society, as it would also be a professional offence. If there is no evidence, however, the allegations should stop. Unsubstantiated attacks on the reputations of solicitors attending clients at holding centres cannot be allowed to continue. Such attacks represent a serious breach of the principle that every individual has a right to a proper defence by a lawyer of his or her choice.
Video and audio taping would have one slight advantage, in that they help to prevent the allegations made by some detainees that their solicitors' connections with paramilitary organisations are said to prove their guilt.
Secondly, I have witnessed the extremely poor conditions within the Castlereagh holding centre to which Sir Louis referred in his report. He asserts:
the whole centre is not conducive to the civilised administration of a process of holding persons in police custody for the purpose of interrogation".
I agree. He also states:
The absence of any realistic space for exercise in the open air … and the absence of any clock or watch and the denial of reading and writing matter are serious deprivations".
I understand that exercise in the open air would be difficult, but the others could be complied with immediately.
Furthermore, RUC officers stationed at Castlereagh are also forced to endure appalling working conditions. We support the proposal that the police authority should urgently get on with finding other premises.
Northern Ireland is a deeply divided society, and a significant section of the population refuse to accept the legitimacy of the forces of law and order. In such circumstances, the impartial upholding of the law is crucial, and the lack of confidence in the security forces which exists among some groups cannot be ignored.
While the majority of the security forces in Northern Ireland maintain, and have maintained, the high standards expected of them, often in the face of tremendous abuse and the temptation to retaliate, it nevertheless must be


recognised that there are occasional abuses of power. This further damages confidence in the community, and reinforces the sense of alienation. Even with safeguards to protect citizens, abuses of power are still almost inevitable.
John Rowe reports that the number of complaints against the police in 1993 was 2,956, yet only 1 per cent. of those were substantiated. Rowe asserts: 
the small number of complaints substantiated causes resentment in the community".
Such a low level of success damages the credibility of the independent commission. I support the commission's call for a change in the legislation to enable it to call in cases for investigate without the need for a complaint or referral by the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable or the police authority.
The Secretary of State said that he would not accept what the Lord Chief Justice said about a new, or lesser, crime to be indicted against members of the security forces who kill somebody in doubtful situations when they are on duty. I confess that I believe that there is still a lot to be debated in this area. One can see the problem facing the serving soldier.
I was under the impression that, at the intergovernmental conference over a year ago, the matter was referred to civil servants from both sides for discussion. I had expected that there might have been an outcome to the deliberations. Certainly I believe that there is wide scope for debate. I do not think that we can casually, in a few moments, throw over what the Lord Chief Justice has said—as the Secretary of State has done in the debate—without examining it more carefully.
The Labour party warmly welcomes the impressively detailed first annual report of Mr. David Hewitt. While we maintain that the assessor should have powers to investigate the merits of particular cases, and while we regret that the powers relate only to procedure, David Hewitt's research and recommendations deserve careful consideration by the Government.
I was pleased to hear that the commanding officer is looking at the matters carefully—and, I hope, sympathetically—because much of what Hewitt suggested is powerful, and could go a long way towards easing many troubles. The low number of successful complaints, as he has pointed out, remains a matter of concern, because it calls into question the accountability of the armed force, and reinforces the perception that they are above the law, which we all know and believe they are not.
In 1993, only 16 formal non-criminal complaints—7.6
per cent. of the total—were upheld. Hewitt concludes:
perhaps as many as 50 per cent. of the 'denied' and 'not substantiated nor disproven' cases may have been from individuals genuinely and understandably aggrieved by Army behaviour, at least on the balance of probability, if not beyond reasonable doubt.
Hewitt concludes that the low level of successful complaints leads to "widespread dissatisfaction", which he considers to be justified. That is a damning indictment of the present procedures.

Mr. Brazier: As the hon. Gentleman works through his long laundry list of the existing powers with which he agrees and disagrees, would he like to make it clear whether there are any extra powers that he thinks the security forces should enjoy in Ulster to defeat the very real threat from terrorism?

Mr. McNamara: I believe that a careful balance must be struck between those powers that are necessary and

which will not alienate the community, and those that, if used, would alienate the community and therefore would be self-defeating. For example, there are powers relating to the laundering of money and matters of that nature which are a very proper part of the ordinary law of the land and of the emergency provisions.
I regret that we have to have trials without juries, but I would rather have contracting in than certifying out. There are others, which I could go through. The principal one which I have stated I do not believe should remain is the power of internment. The Government should also accept the other recommendations that have followed.
No one can quarrel with David Hewitt's assertion that the overwhelming aim of the complaints procedure is to give reasonable satisfaction to a genuine complainant. In cases where it is simply the soldier's word against that of the complainant, Hewitt recommends that the complainant should more often be given the benefit of the doubt and an apology should be dispatched on a "without prejudice" basis. I support that proposal.
Also of concern are cases highlighted by Hewitt which fall outside the Army's non-criminal investigation procedure because they have been deemed criminal by the RUC, but where the Director of Public Prosecutions decides not to prosecute. In those cases, no further action or prosecution is undertaken by the Army. Again, I support Hewitt's call for all criminal incidents that are not prosecuted to be made automatically the subject of Army investigation, and a reply made in the same way as with non-criminal formal complaints. That has the added advantage of ensuring that the Army is seen to take an interest, and increases the possibility of disciplinary action if the complaint is upheld.
John Rowe also discussed the need to implement as soon as possible a code for stop-and-search guidelines. Such a code would provide an indication to the police, armed forces and ordinary citizens of what is acceptable in practice. It would prove a useful yardstick against which to measure behaviour when a complaint is lodged, and the reasonableness of a complaint. That should also be supported.
The Secretary of State mentioned a number of matters on which he had had discussions, following the list produced by the Chief Constable. On the question of the plucked hair, I presume that the hair would be plucked from the scalp. The power already exists to take a swab from the mouth for DNA purposes. Plucking a hair or taking a swab from the mouth would still be seen as an assault, but plucking a hair would probably be easier than taking a swab from the mouth. I presume that the intention is that the hair would be plucked from the scalp. The circumstances under which that was done would have to be considered carefully, but I regard that as a reasonable matter to go ahead.
I also understand the Secretary of State's difficulty about the intercepting of telecommunications, which could make available evidence that would lead to more successful prosecutions. The problem is, under what circumstances, controls and patterns would such evidence be taken; how could it be rendered credible; and what would the protections be? Would it be done by judicial warrant or the fiat of the Secretary of State? A political decision in such circumstances would not be acceptable. Equally, however, I understand why the Secretary of State is reluctant to see the prerogative powers cut back.
Although I would have to refer the matter to my hon. Friends, I believe that the attaining of evidence in that manner, subject to proper judicial control, would lead to successful prosecutions, as we have seen against the Mafia in the United States. I would not lose much sleep about it, but I want proper controls over it. It should not be left to political decisions by the Secretary of State. Just cause for curtailing such evidence would have to be given before a judicial officer.
On the right to silence and the possession and assumption of knowledge, the Secretary of State has taken the right decisions.
The Government must recognise that we cannot continue to maintain the same policing methods in a divided society which, every year, grows even more geographically segregated. We understand the difficulties in recruiting greater numbers of the minority community to the RUC. However, more than 90 per cent. of the membership of the police force is drawn from one community. That serious imbalance cannot be ignored.
The Government's recent discussion paper, "Policing in the Community", does not tackle the problems of community acceptability and recruitment. Instead of examining alternative structures, it merely proposes the further centralisation of power. The discussion paper seeks to maintain the fiction that community policy and security policing are separate.
Northern Ireland needs the whole community to feel that the police force belongs to all of them. While we understand that this objective is intrinsically linked to the political situation and to the question of a political settlement, it should nevertheless still be the immediate aim of the Government to consider ways in which to improve the general acceptability of the police force.
The Labour party recognises the need for an effective anti-terrorist policy. We ourselves have instituted a major independent research project to re-evaluate current anti-terrorist methods, to develop alternative proposals and to look also at European experience. The failure to develop a comprehensive and successful counter-subversion policy has led to a steady erosion of civil liberties, and meanwhile has left the citizens of this country exposed to terrorist attack.
The terrorist denies the most basic of human rights: the citizen's right to life. But that does not free the Government of their responsibility to maintain certain democratic principles, objectives and rights.
We will vote against the order tonight, because it has failed to be an effective mechanism to defeat the paramilitary; because the power of internment remains on the statute books; and because of the Government's constant failure to accept the recommendations of their own advisers to improve the protection of the citizen and remove propaganda material from the mouths of terrorists. Until the Government repeal the power of internment and introduce reforms and safeguards recommended by their own hand-picked advisers, the Labour party is unable to support the renewal of the order.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: It is therapeutic to listen to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) because whatever inner doubts one might have about one's own position are instantly dispelled by his tortuous and fallacious reasoning.
I shall be brief. The substantive arguments relating to the emergency provisions have been well rehearsed over the years. Many of us who hope to catch your eye in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will speak from well-entrenched and well-defined positions. I am no exception to that rule. I strongly support the renewal of the emergency provisions.
The underlying issue—the key to the debate—is of course the tension which exists between, on the one hand, championing civil liberties and, on the other hand, taking effective measures in the fight against terrorism. I do not deny for one moment that both the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the emergency provisions do curtail civil rights, but I believe that the greatest threat to civil liberties actually comes from terrorism and not from these measures. Those who seek to undermine or change the decision of the ballot box by bullet or bomb are themselves committing a greater offence against civil liberties than are these measures.
It is a paradox that unless we take appropriate measures against terrorism we are ourselves undermining cherished civil liberties. In the context of terrorism, we have to requalify civil liberties. Nor should we overlook the fact that the emergency provisions go hand in hand with the search for a political settlement, and we undermine the chances of achieving a political settlement if we do not take effective measures against terrorism.
I shall discipline myself and select just three points from Mr. Rowe's report. Many others can be made and other hon. Members will no doubt make them. The first takes up a substantial part of the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I welcome the retention of the detention orders in part IV, section 34—I refer particularly to page 30, chapter 7 of the report. This is, we know, an emotive and divisive issue. My personal views have not changed, and I do not apologise for holding them. I believe that there are circumstances—select, special circumstances—in which detention is justified and should be used. I therefore welcome Mr. Rowe's conclusion.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Will he share with us at least one, perhaps two, of the select circumstances in which he would favour detention?

Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman is excessively enthusiastic. Had he borne with me for a moment or so, I would have discussed that point.
Before I gave way a little prematurely, I was saying that I therefore welcome the conclusion drawn by Mr. Rowe that the detention powers should remain part of the Act. I acknowledge that internment is an infringement of civil liberties. I acknowledge that when it was practised in the 1970s probably some people were unjustly detained. I acknowledge that in the 1970s it was a boost to terrorism, but I believe that that was yesterday's argument and that the times have significantly changed.
Internment today would be regarded as fairer than was the case in the 1970s, for the simple reason that it would strike across the community divide. That is a substantial


difference from the practice of internment 20 years or so ago. Both the political climate and public thinking have substantially changed. Whereas then we were dealing with an immediate backlog of an abuse of civil liberties, that is hardly the case today. Public thinking has changed, and so has the quality of intelligence. For those reasons, I am suspicious of the familiar arguments against internment.
In answer to the question that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) asked me, I believe that the most justifiable circumstances for the use of internment are when heightened terrorist activity is a reality or is anticipated on strong intelligence grounds. Selective internment at that point, aimed at key people known in the terrorist movements, can totally undermine and destroy terrorist cells' command and communication structures and incapacitate terrorist activity. In those circumstances, used selectively and sensitively, I believe that internment can work.

Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that powers of that type, although they are not called internment powers, already exist in almost every other country in Europe and have been used successfully—holding people for months on end—in dealing with organisations such as the Red Brigade?

Mr. Hunter: I do not have the intimate knowledge that my hon. Friend has. From my reading about the ways in which other countries have tackled terrorist problems, I know that there has never been a success without the legal powers to detain the leading players in the game of terrorism.
I shall accelerate to the second theme that I want to take up from Mr. Rowe's report. I am prompted to that by a statement on page 19, paragraph 3, under the heading,
General remarks on Part I of the Act",
where Mr. Rowe writes:
It was said to me that there should be … no further use of hearsay against the defendant on material points or substantial and contentious matters.
Leading questions always need to be asked about our battle against Irish terrorism. Are the resources available? Are the legal powers that we need there? Is our intelligence gathering all that it should be? Is the co-operation with the Republic all that it should be? The question of legal powers is pertinent to the emergency powers that we are discussing.
I listened with great interest to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I must confess that I followed closely the arguments that emanated especially from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and which were reflected in the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Those amendments and the surrounding debate concentrated on whether hearsay and electronically gathered evidence should be admitted. There was the question whether the right to silence should be redefined. There was the question of providing greater protection for witnesses and the emotive issue of encouraging super-grass evidence. I do not think that the debate is closed. Many more people will give their ideas in the next few months and I know that my hon. Friends share the thought that perhaps those should be considered closely before we come to a conclusion.
There is to be a major review of the emergency provisions next year. I hope that those will be among the many issues to be considered in that review. If the feeling

of the RUC is that these additional powers should be enshrined in law, we as politicians would have to have very good reasons for failing to go along with the proposal. The RUC is, after all, in the front line of the fight against Irish terrorism.
My last point refers to paragraph 3 on page 35 of Mr. Rowe's report. This concerns the conclusion that interviews should be recorded on audio tape. I remain cynical about that conclusion. I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the RUC. Mr. Rowe summarises at great length the case that he encountered. What interests me about his thesis is that his counter-argument singularly fails to convince. Mr. Rowe quarrels with the fact that all that the RUC feared would happen if tape recording were introduced is the current reality. Surely that fact is an argument for looking at existing practices rather than for jumping to the conclusion that what is needed is the recording of interviews.
The emergency provisions have an essential and integral part to play in the battle against terrorism. They therefore supplement the search for political agreement. The annual report unequivocally recommends their renewal, and that is precisely what we should do today.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I find it very difficult to take part in this debate. In the past seven days, there have been four murders in my constituency. Two of those murdered were neighbours of mine—young students shot in a taxi station in Armagh—one was a young soldier in the town of Keady, and the fourth was a young soldier in the city of Armagh. Having experienced such a thing so recently, and having known it so often over the past 25 years, one is torn emotionally, intellectually and, indeed, politically when one addresses these issues. It would be very difficult for people like me to adopt the decided views that can be taken by people living in England, Scotland or Wales.
In these circumstances, it is all the more essential that we examine, scrutinise and, indeed, criticise the legislation. The more terrorism strikes at the heart of a community, the more that community's legislators should defend those things in the system of law and in society that we all hold dear. The last thing we should be doing is facilitating terrorists by allowing them to create a legal wasteland, to force us to bend the law as is done in this legislation and to produce in us knee-jerk reactions that often have more to do with personal prejudices than with the defeat of terrorism.
That is why it is absolutely essential that the House of Commons should ensure that it does not approach the matter as being, in the words of the Evening Standard of 10 March 1993,
a litmus test for sound anti-terrorist credentials.
I do not for one moment believe that there is an hon. Member in the House who does not have sound anti-terrorist credentials. Whatever our views, they should be treated on that basis.
Our views should also be treated in a wider way because we are at a crucial time in the life of the north of Ireland. Put simply, is it possible that we can persuade the terrorist groups to stop their violence, become part of the political process and create peace or is it not? The answer to that question very much determines views on what may or may not be contained in this legislation or any future legislation.


For that reason, it is essential that we examine, scrutinise, and, with courage, question that which we feel should be questioned.
There is no point in our participating in a three-hour debate once a year, to be ritualistic, say safe things and make comments that might please other people. We should put the spotlight on the subject: where there is a deviation and derogation from the normal law, we must always shine the spotlight. For that reason, I would not regard today's debate as ritualistic, although it may sometimes sound ritualistic, but as an essential part of the process.
We should ask broad general questions. We may not be able to answer some of them and we may have divided views on some of them. The first question that I would ask is this: can the implementation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and the prevention of terrorism Act be fully and properly accommodated within a civilised society without doing irreparable damage? Secondly, is damage done to the process of law that has been seen in this country to have resulted in unsound and unsatisfactory convictions—of which I think there have been six over this period?
On the subject of damage to the process of justice itself, are the highest standards and integrity of law and the process of justice being eroded in any way by the implementation of the legislation? We have only to look at some of the events that have taken place over the years in what are now called holding centres and what used to be called interrogation centres, at some of the incidents that have happened on the streets and at the incidents that involve loss of life. If we consider the issue in those terms, we must say that there is a danger that damage is done to the process of justice.
Is damage done to the body politic itself? Is there an erosion of the proper conviction that the law, the courts, the police and the legislators are there to protect every person's right as well as to punish him or her when he or she transgresses? Is the legislation there to protect, rather than diminish, those rights? After all, legislation exists to defend the innocent, not to make him or her subject to detention for the purpose of intelligence gathering, as has happened in the past—a subject to which I shall refer later. Is damage done to society as a whole? Are the highest standards, which we should all cherish, being damaged in the process of trying to arrive at a political solution through the legal process?
We should ask those questions and we should keep asking them, because what is at stake is not just the future elimination or defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland or what happens to the Provisional IRA or the so-called loyalist paramilitary groups. At stake are the principles and the highest standards that have been built up painstakingly over centuries. Once those are diminished, it is difficult to re-establish and reinstate them. Every time the law is diminished, society is diminished, and every time society is diminished, so is every person within it. Against that background, no matter whom it might hurt, we should examine the legislation and the laws within it very carefully indeed.
I shall concentrate on about four issues and intend to speak briefly. The first issue concerns the delays in remand. I quote the Secretary of State in a previous debate on 8 June 1993:

We set demanding targets of 38 weeks from first remand to committal, and 14 weeks from committal to arraignment. The scheme began on 1 July 1992. The agencies involved in the prosecution process have embarked on the operation with great vigour.
We should examine that vigour and commitment. Mr. Rowe told us in his report that the average time for remand in 1992 was 57 weeks. Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's statement about the vigour that would operate in relation to remand, the average time of remand went up to 65 weeks in 1993. That is not great evidence of the vigour that I should like to see exercised by those agencies of the law that have responsibility for remand.
Let us remind ourselves that remand involves taking away a person's freedom before that person is found guilty. Let us have more vigour. Let us subject the Secretary of State's statement to scrutiny and ask the Secretary of State to ask the agencies why that vigour has not in effect shown the results that he anticipated in the time limits to which he referred.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I strongly support his view that there have been undue delays in bringing cases to court. Many people wait more than two years before they get their day in court and some never get to court as their cases are dropped before they get that far. Nobody could approve of that. Has the hon. Gentleman considered the two possibilities in the Rowe report—that in one set of circumstances the accused would be allowed bail after a given period or, alternatively, that the case would fall altogether? Which of those two does the hon. Gentleman support?

Mr. Mallon: I have to be honest and say neither. If I wanted to make a debating point, I would have chosen one of them, but the Secretary of State committed himself one year ago when he said:
A more satisfactory assessment will be possible in the light of a full year's operation of the scheme. Then we shall able to address Lord Colville's proposal for a new scheme of time limits, statutory or otherwise, to cover all those on remand and custody for the indictable offences. That is an important factor.
I agree. Surely the only satisfactory solution is not to have a statutory time limit—which I believe applies in Scotland—or an arbitrary limit whereby after a given period the person is released irrespective of what evidence may have been accumulated, but an arrangement whereby the agencies adhere to the time limit set down by the Secretary of State, which was 38 weeks plus 14.
My second question relates to recording interviews. Lord Colville recommended video recording. Mr. Rowe recommends audio recording; he says that he has no view on video recording. I trust that he will develop a view before the substantive report is made for the five-year review. The Chief Constable opposes it. He seems to be fairly lonely on that issue, because I have not met anyone in the system who does not see the merits of it.
In his report, Mr. Rowe refers to the amount of compensation for allegations of ill treatment and so on in interrogation centres. He makes the point that some of it may be finding its way into the coffers of paramilitary groups. But surely one of the sound ways of preventing that is to have the type of video recording about which he has no view. It is there as a protection not just for the individual but for the police themselves against allegations that might be unfounded and is worth serious consideration.
The Law Reform Commission of Canada, when studying that point in 1985–87, said:
Aside from providing a new tool for the investigative process, the Police, Crown Counsel and defence lawyers viewed the introduction of this technology as an improvement of the administration of justice. An accurate video tape record of police interviews largely eliminates court room conflicts over what was said and how an accused was treated. The new technology, therefore, helps police in gathering evidence at the same time as it adds protection to the rights of the accused.
I think that that opinion, substantiated by Lord Colville and supported by Mr. Rowe, is one which the Secretary of State should look at again. We must question Sir Hugh Annesley's view on that, because it is not enough to say that he is head of the police and that he is the person ultimately responsible. His views must be challenged as well. If we are to get to the root of much of the apprehension that exists about holding centres, that surely is one of the ways to do it. That is the way in which to protect the police as well as the person in custody.
I refer now to the intimidation of lawyers which is cropping up. Some instances have been referred to me in my work. I cite the case of a law firm in Newry called Fitzsimons, Mallon and—I have forgotten the other name. The Mallon is no relation. I shall supply the rest of the name to the Secretary of State. Some of the most scurrilous allegations are alleged to have been made by interrogating police officers to clients of that firm. It has made its complaint to the police. I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that that does not happen within the legal process, because if such allegations are continually made, there is something in the air, and responsible solicitors will not contact my office or anybody else's unless they are fairly sure of their ground—fairly sure that the allegation is not a concoction, and has, indeed, been made.
My third point is about compensation for those whose businesses or homes might be affected by the security forces. A year ago, the Secretary of State gave a commitment:
I shall see whether it is possible to devise and implement a fair and practicable scheme which would help them, but that cannot be done quickly."—[Official Report, 8 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 155–60.]
A year has elapsed since the Secretary of State gave that commitment. It is right and proper that we should ask him whether he has been able to do so, and in a way that will show results.
There is a bakery in my constituency which goes back to 1903 and which is now surrounded by a police base. It needs to expand but cannot, for the simple reason that the police have taken the land that it would need to do so for use as a heliport. Its entrance is now guarded by the Army, and its lorries must go through it as though they were going into a police state. That bakery has been offered no compensation for the fact that it cannot run its business properly. In the light of the commitment that he made last year, I ask the Secretary of State to examine that case; indeed, there are many cases throughout the north of Ireland in which compensation is justified.
My final point relates to detention for up to seven days. I have considerable reservations about that, mainly because of something that was said in the House of Commons in October 1983 by the then Home Secretary. Leon Brittan said that the power of detention had acted
first, as a deterrent to persons other than the people who have been detained".
A Home Secretary was telling us that it was right that

people should be detained in order to deter others, through a process which is a derogation from the European convention on human rights. Secondly, the power had
enabled information to be obtained that was of direct value in the battle against terrorism, even though it did not lead to action against the people concerned."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 55–6.]
That is what a Home Secretary said, on the Floor of the House of Commons, about the use of powers of detention under the PTA and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.
Surely we have a right to be concerned when such a motivation is put on record on the Floor of the House as a justifiable reason—two justifiable reasons—for the use of seven-day detention powers. In the cases that were specified, the detentions did not result from the activities of the people involved but were intended to act as a deterrent or to trawl for information.
I do not know whether that is still happening, but I am concerned about the figures. In 1993, 1,641 people were detained in Northern Ireland under the PTA; 379 were charged and 1,262 were released without charge. I know the difficulties faced by the police: I know that those involved in terrorism sometimes cannot be broken down, and may leave the police station after the relevant period with a smirk on their faces, knowing that they have avoided charges. I recognise the problem of a police officer who knows that the person sitting across the table either organised or carried out the most heinous crimes, and also knows that he must release that person after seven days.
Nevertheless, there is something wrong in those figures —something questionable. I do not know what it is, but I ask the Secretary of State—in the spirit in which I began—to subject them to as much scrutiny as possible. It would be intolerable if the legislation were used for the reasons given by the then Home Secretary.
I welcome this opportunity to deal with some of the points raised by the motion. I think that we should do this, and do it as honestly as we can. There is something that will survive IRA and so-called loyalist terrorism—the high standard that we have set ourselves in this country and in Ireland, which is worth protecting.

Rev. William McCrea: Once again, we gather for what some consider a ritual debate on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order. Since our last debate, violence and murder have not only continued unabated but increased dramatically. Therefore, it is appropriate for elected representatives in the House from both Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom to question why there is such a deplorable and deadly situation.
I read the morning view in a local newspaper, which said:
Evil forces are at work in our community who have got to be confronted head on by the Government and by those tasked with law and order in our Province.
Innocent people must be protected as they go about their normal business. The RUC and the army have got to switch the emphasis to providing proactive rather than reactive security … The troubles have plagued the people of Northern Ireland for 25 long years. There can never be an acceptable level of violence and even one more day of terror is a day too much for a people who have endured more than their share of suffering.
I concur with those remarks. When one reads that, after 25 years of terrorism in our Province and in the United Kingdom, one fact is clear. It is beyond dispute that the


so-called and much-heralded peace policy purported to be the real answer to our ills has failed abysmally. The debate and the renewal of the Act are proof of that stubborn fact.
On 9 November, my hon. Friends presented proposals to the Prime Minister. During that meeting, the Prime Minister said that he was not rejecting those proposals, as many of them were in accordance with his own views. However, he said that he had a quicker and a more certain way in which to produce peace and a quicker way in which to bring an end to terrorism. That process was the one on which he had embarked with the Dublin Government. It was promised that the London-Dublin discussions would produce the peace prize for which every sane person yearned—and yearns. We were all assured by the Dublin Government that we would have peace by Christmas. The SDLP said that we would have peace within a week, then by Christmas, then by Easter, then after Easter. Now it is a prize well worth waiting for.
Of course, we must not forget that, in our constituencies—certainly in mine, for yesterday I again stood at the graveside of a young, gallant member of the security forces—the murder, the slaughter, the carnage and the torture of innocent people continues. In reality, the so-called peace process, in which many are engaged, is in my opinion and in the opinion of many in the Province nothing more or less than bogus and a deceit. The overtures to the IRA-Sinn Fein murderers have continued, while Northern Ireland has been savaged by terrorism.
Yesterday's murder of a young Shankill road man in the centre of the city of Belfast brings the total of murders this year to 32—three more than last year. Yet we are supposed to be in the midst of the peace process. We are supposed to be in a time of expressions of peace from the IRA-Sinn Fein. The galling fact is that, while innocent victims lie on the street, the media parade animals on our television screens talking about their efforts for peace. Yesterday, I stood once again in my constituency at the open grave of a young soldier, one who was 19 years of age. My eldest is 21. That soldier was only a boy, who was walking the streets of Armagh. That boy was taken and was not only done to death—not quickly because, even for them, that would have been too little—but was tortured in the most despicable way.
Can anyone here understand the pain of a mother or father whose son is murdered? Can anyone really understand the anguish in the heart of a mother when she realises that her son was taken and, while she was lying in her bed, was tortured and parts of his body rent asunder while the very people who parade on our television screens are, we are told, involved in a peace process? The Secretary of State tells us that, in a short while, if they lay down their weapons, we shall draw a line in the sand. Can anyone imagine what that does to a mother?
Let us bear in mind that, a year ago, the young boy of 19 walked down the same road that we walked along yesterday, carrying his brother in a coffin. His brother had been murdered by the same scum that murdered him. That is not all. Thirteen years ago, that boy's granny—an old woman—was blown to bits by the IRA so that family, who are my constituents, have lost a granny, a grandson of 22 and a boy of 19.
What was that young boy's crime? His crime was to put on the Queen's uniform. He wanted to protect the

law-abiding citizens of our community, Protestant and Roman Catholic. He wanted to provide a better life for them and believed that he had a duty to do something to ensure the safety of the people of the Province. It is a duty that some people criticise from their armchairs, but they themselves would never do anything to provide that protection for the community.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the security forces were in fact representative of only one community in Northern Ireland. In all the years that he has been shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he would have done well to have called, at the Dispatch Box, on members of the other community to join the security forces and protect the people, instead of using every opportunity to gut and cut asunder the efforts of brave and courageous young men and women who have joined the security forces and defended the right to life. I salute all members of our security forces for their bravery and courage.
It is all very well for hon. Members to sit here in these beautiful surroundings, on the green Benches of Westminster, but let me tell them where some of the boys whom I represent are. They are lying behind a ditch or walking the roads while the snow is on the ground, the hail beats down on them or the rain soaks them. They are certainly not doing it for the money because no one could say that ordinary soldier boys are overpaid. Those young lads operate not in the comfort of the House but along the border. They are in areas where to put on the uniform means danger, but not to put on the uniform means the surrender of law and order to the terrorists.

Dr. Joe Hendron: The hon. Gentleman used the word "scum". I totally agree with that description of the people who tortured the young soldier from Cookstown and brutally murdered him, and with the other strong language that the hon. Gentleman used. But would he also use the word "scum", as I certainly would, to described the so-called loyalist paramilitaries, who have also taken young people out and brutally tortured and murdered them?

Rev. William McCrea: I know exactly what it is not to sit away from terrorism, but to feel terrorism. No terrorism has any glory in it. There is nothing delightful about any terrorist and nothing courageous about terrorism. I know, because in our family we have experienced the reality of terrorism not once, not twice, not three times, but more often. I know what the reality and the curse of terrorism is.
Because I know what terrorism does, and I know about the blight of terrorism in the community, I believe that we need to take the actions that will destroy terrorists. We should not parade them on our television screens, as if in a matter of three months of decontamination they could be looked upon as something other than the terrorists that they are. I do not buy that argument when I think about Reggie and Nigel McCollum and the lady in Dungannon. I do not buy it when I think about young Fred Anthony, or about little Emma, who is fighting for her life at this moment.
After standing at the graveside yesterday I went to the home of Emma Anthony and sat with the family there. Does the House really know what that is like? She is a little girl of three. If the look or the picture of a wee three-year-old child does not touch the heart of the terrorists, does anybody think that, because of a few


appeals to them, a few pats on the back, the idea that they will become gentlemen if they just lay down their weapons, they will turn from their vile and evil deeds?
I believe that if the people in IRA-Sinn Fein are thinking anything at the present moment it is how they can advance their position politically. It is not that they are sick of terrorism, or of the vile deeds that they have done. It is not that they are ready to repent for what they have done within the community. No, they are behaving in a certain way because they believe that they have a better chance than ever before, and that they will get rewards for their deeds—because they have been able to bomb their way to a place at the table.
Like every other Member of the House from Northern Ireland, I entered the House not through the bomb or the bullet but through the ballot box, and through honouring the ballot box. Yet what have we seen? We have seen the sickening appearance of the Government dealing through the back door, in my opinion contemptibly and disgracefully, in betrayal of the gallant men and women who down through the years have made the ultimate sacrifice in the battle against terrorism.
What do we find? We find that Government agencies and Government people are negotiating with, talking to, and in cahoots with, the terrorists behind the scenes. On 29 November, after many months and years, our Government were found to be involved in that process, through certain contacts with the IRA. The revelations came shortly after our Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that his stomach would turn at the thought of negotiating with the IRA-Sinn Fein.
To find out that those contacts were already taking place on the very day on which that statement was made, proved to the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland the utter duplicity of British Government policy towards the Province. The declaration is a declaration addressed to the IRA-Sinn Fein. No consideration was given to the long-suffering, heartbroken majority of our Province.
The other day, I heard some folks say that the same offer is on the table for the loyalist terrorists. I must challenge that because I remember a meeting that I held with the Prime Minister and my colleagues, the leader and the deputy leader of my party. At that meeting, I asked the Prime Minister why the Secretary of State, in the speeches that he was making throughout the Province, said that if the IRA-Sinn Fein turned its back or put down its weapons, there would be a place at the table for it. Why did he not mention the UVF, the UFF, the UDA and the Red Hand commandos? I found the answer interesting. The Prime Minister said that in discussions he had had with others, it was evident that the UVF, the UFF, the UDA and the Red Hand commandos would not have a mandate from the electorate but that Sinn Fein did, so it could not be treated in the same way.
The Prime Minister also said that loyalist violence was only reactive, not proactive, and therefore it was believed and perceived that the Government had only to address the IRA terrorism and all other terrorism would cease. In other words, the Government had only to buy off the IRA—there was no need to buy off anyone else because the violence would automatically stop.
No credence is given to the concerns and alienation of the loyalist people until the statistics change. That is what is so sickening about it all. The only time that one is recognised and one is told that one can get the same treatment is if one starts to murder—if one starts to put up

one's statistics and beats the other boys at the same game. In other words, the only thing that one needs is proof—the only time that people will listen is when one murders. That is the law of the jungle, but it is not the law of the United Kingdom and it is not the law of democracy. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) should not be laughing.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not find it funny at all; I find it terribly pathetic.

Rev. William McCrea: I would wipe the sneer off the hon. Gentleman's face. I can assure the House that while the murder was in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he was not standing with me yesterday in Sandholes; nor did he visit the family of the young boy who was brutally done to death.
It is evident from the fact that, after all these years, we are still talking about emergency and prevention of terrorism provisions that we are in an unholy mess and tragedy. The price that the IRA demands may be offered by the Government, but that will not decide the matter because they are not in a position to make the offer. The people of Northern Ireland will have the final say. The feeling of frustration and alienation within the majority community has been dismissed by many as rabble rousing, yet I wonder what it will take before the truth of the situation is faced.
The other day, Mr. Adair was lifted in the Shankill road. I shall not enter into his case because it is sub judice. We were told that that was the first time that such legislation had been used and the essence of the charge is that he is supposed to have been directing terrorism. What about Mr. Martin McGuinness from Londonderry? What about the mountain of evidence produced on two television programmes against him for directing terrorism? He has not been lifted under the legislation—oh no, that will do for the Protestants and the loyalists—but we know why. I asked in the House why Mr. McGuinness was not lifted immediately after Roger Cook's two television programmes. Let us remember that Mr. Cook was very courageous even to put them together. The Government could not let Mr. McGuinness be lifted because he was fronting their IRA-Sinn Fein connection and doing deals in back rooms, so they could not touch him. Is that fair execution of justice? It seems rather strange.
The Government introduced legislation on incitement to hatred. It is interesting that it was used only against another loyalist. Would anyone suggest that many speeches by IRA members—whether wearing hoods in Carrickmore or standing on a stage to be photographed—were an incitement to hatred although the legislation was not used? There is a feeling of alienation within the community. The position of democratically elected politicians, especially in the Unionist community, is being undermined and demeaned and murderers are being elevated.
I trust that the House will pass this legislation. It is a sad reality that we need it after all these years because we ought to have defeated the enemy. Unfortunately, if one talks to such people in back rooms, behind doors, one cannot be expected to defeat them. I and my colleagues will join hon. Members who support the legislation in the Lobby, but I must say that I long for peace with all my heart. My constituency, like others, has been ravaged by terrorism, but there is still a belief that one can buy off terrorists.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have been reflecting on what the hon. Gentleman said about prosecution and the lack of it. Will he tell the House openly whether he is asserting that the Chief Constable of the RUC and the Director of Public Prosecutions are politically motivated in the exercise of their functions and are other than independent?

Rev. William McCrea: Can I say to the Secretary of State in reply—

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Just answer the question for once.

Rev. William McCrea: With the greatest respect, Madam Speaker, I suggest that you are in command of this debate, not the Secretary of State.
As far as prosecutions are concerned, the question is still unanswered. Who is guilty? I do not have the information. Will the Secretary of State tell the House why Martin McGuinness is not behind bars tonight? Will the Secretary of State tell the House why Martin McGuinness could not be arrested after two damning—I use the word properly—programmes with a wealth of evidence? Why was he not before a court? I had a constituent from Mid-Ulster—a loyalist—and Roger Cook did one programme in which he was involved. My constituent was lifted the morning after the programme, interviewed and sentenced to imprisonment in Magilligan prison.
If it was right—the Secretary of State will be able to answer the question far better than I—that there has been hokery-pokery, no one in the Province will believe the Secretary of State. No one believes that Martin McGuinness should not at least have been arrested after such evidence was gathered. After talking to members of his own Northern Ireland Office, I can tell the Secretary of State that that is believed there as well.
I suppose that it is difficult to say that because there might be a rampage to find out who speaks to me from either the Secretary of State's private office or the Northern Ireland Office. The Government would more concerned about that than they would be about finding out whether McGuinness was responsible for murders and for directing terrorism in the Province.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Is not the point which the hon. Gentleman is making not so much whether we should question the competence of the Chief Constable or of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but whether McGuinness should not at least have been arrested and questioned after the two programmes? Should not questions have come from the Northern Ireland Office as to why McGuinness, with a wealth of evidence against him, was not arrested and questioned?

Rev. William McCrea: I accept whole-heartedly what the hon. Gentleman said. I raised the question in the House during an earlier debate and I am still waiting for a reply—it may be lost in the post. Perhaps I can look forward to the Secretary of State telling me why, after two major programmes which went out across the airwaves, Martin McGuinness has not been questioned. If one considered the question, one would have to say, "How could he have been questioned when he was the front man for the terrorists in their negotiations through the back door with the Government?"

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is not it the case that, arising from the programmes, Roger Cook's team presented the security

forces with the evidence, including sworn affidavits from people who were witnesses to Martin McGuinness's involvement in terrorism? The security forces therefore had the evidence in their possession and, at the very least, should have brought him in to question him.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, with which I whole-heartedly concur. I know that the Secretary of State has also heard my hon. Friend's remarks and the evidence that he has presented to the House and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will keep that in his thoughts when he is replying to specific questions. I can assure the House that the Province waits with interest to find out what the Secretary of State's response is.
I conclude my remarks by saying that, for the people I represent, the violence, murders and destruction go on. Can anyone understand what it is to visit their homes? They ask, "When will it end?" Unfortunately, under the present policy of the Government, the end is certainly not in sight.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Few hon. Members can match the passion or direct experience of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and I do not intend to try. However, even if one does not bring to these matters that same passion and experience, that does not excuse the House from considering carefully the terms of the proposal before us and, in a responsible way, reaching a proper conclusion on whether the provisions should be renewed yet again for 12 months.
If there is a Division, I shall advise my right hon and hon. Friends to vote for the order. We shall not do so with great enthusiasm but rather because we regard it as a regrettable necessity. Indeed, we shall vote for the order with considerable reservations because we profoundly believe that the rights, protections and civil liberties of all United Kingdom citizens should be the same wherever they live and that only in the most unusual circumstances can a departure from those principles be justified.
On the evidence that we have heard in the debate so far, quite apart from our own knowledge, I must conclude that the circumstances still obtaining in Northern Ireland justify renewing the order once again. Indeed, they justify powers that, in other circumstances, might be regarded as draconian. Those powers should not be maintained for an instant longer than is necessary. They should be grudgingly tolerated and we should work, with all the power available to us, to withdraw them at the earliest possible date, for they represent a serious incursion into the rights that citizens throughout the United Kingdom are entitled to expect.
The powers continue to be justified only because the cancer of terrorism still lies at the heart of life in Northern Ireland. They will not eliminate that cancer; at best, they may contain it. Unless and until a political settlement that commands the support of the whole community of Northern Ireland is achieved, we are likely to continue to face the kind of terrorist outrages that so affect our judgment of these issues.
As always, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I was sorry to hear him say yet again that, because of the existence of the power of internment and certain defects in the legislation, he and his party are not disposed to support the order. I am surprised because I


should have thought that, at a time when the joint declaration has been published and the clarification sought has been provided, a unilateral act by the British Parliament to withdraw those powers would appear singularly inappropriate.
I assume that, in pressing the motion to a Division, the hon. Gentleman hopes—perhaps even expects—that the Government will be defeated. The logic of that position is that, were he to win the vote, those parts of the order that he supports and acknowledges are necessary for the security forces would be denied to the security forces after 16 June this year. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but it is an unusual position to adopt in the light of the present circumstances and the logical consequences of his position.

Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that internment and detention without due process of law undermine the legitimacy of the state in whose name they are perpetrated?

Mr. Campbell: Certainly, were it to be in use. The point to which the hon. Gentleman fails to give sufficient weight is that, although the power exists, it is not being implemented. Were the power to be implemented, my judgment is that its use would be counter-productive. It might give rise to the kind of response from certain parts of the community in Northern Ireland that the hon. Gentleman predicts.
I return to the question of logic. When the Division is called, if the hon. Gentleman succeeds in what he sets out to do he will deny to the security forces those powers that he says they are entitled to have. That seems to me to be quite a difficult position to sustain, particularly at this time.
I make a number of criticisms of the existing arrangements. In relation to Diplock courts, I believe that there is a compelling argument to have not a single judge, but three judges. I believe that insufficient use has been made of section 27—the charge of directing terrorism—to which some reference has been made already. I think that efforts should be made to ensure that the power is utilised impartially and more effectively.
With regard to the confiscation of the proceeds of terrorist-related funding, it seems to me that the House might well be entitled to ask the Secretary of State what has happened in the past 12 months and whether he is satisfied that the existing powers are adequate to deal with the problem.

Mr. Harry Barnes: If there are all these reservations about the order, how will we amend it? We have an order on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. If it is offensive in some way, we could reject it and ask the Government to produce a fresh order before the date that it is required.

Mr. Campbell: I doubt whether the last part of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is feasible in the time scale available. He is quite right to say that it is an unamendable order. If his argument is that we should legislate for Northern Ireland in a different manner, he will find ready support from me.
I return to the point I made earlier. At this time, is it to be seriously argued in the Chamber that the House should say to the security forces that they cannot have powers that it is unanimously accepted on both sides of the House are powers they ought to have?
My view is rather different from the Secretary of State's on the question of taping interviews. This is not a matter upon which one ranges one individual against another and says, "Take your pick". Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, Lord Colville and Mr. Rowe have taken a different view on the question whether interviews should be either audio or video taped. Clearly, the Chief Constable's view carries great weight, but sometimes those who stand back and who are not directly in the front line of these matters are in a position to have a more objective and informed view.
There are a number of other aspects on which, if time permitted, I might express criticisms of the legislation. However, I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House—some with more direct knowledge of these matters than I—wish to speak. At the outset of my remarks I described the order as a regrettable necessity. On that footing, I believe that it is entitled to the support of the House.

Mr. David Trimble: As some hon. Members have said, this is a rather ritual occasion which does not really provide an adequate substitute for proper scrutiny by the House of the operation of the legislation. I still believe that at some point we shall have to consider how to scrutinise the legislation in a better way.
While it is a ritual occasion, it still has its surprises. I must record that I had at least one surprise this evening when—if I heard correctly, and I hope that I did—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) suddenly said something at the end of his speech with which I profoundly agreed, and something that I had never heard from him before in any debate. He seemed to announce that his party had commissioned a study of the effectiveness of the legislation, apparently with a view to ensuring that it is more effective. He said that, in so doing, particular regard would be given to the experience in Europe. I am delighted to hear that the Labour party is to undertake a serious study to find out how we can have effective anti-terrorist legislation, with the emphasis on the word "effective". I especially commend the study of the experience in Europe because the Government have much to learn about the reasons for success in Europe in contrast with their own comparative failure.
I wish to discuss some of those reforms, drawing partly on the European experience, which ought to be considered. I shall not refer to the matter at length as I have had occasion to refer to those reforms before, but I shall briefly mention some of them.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) referred to proposals about hearsay. An excellent speech on the general subject of evidence was made in the other place by Lord Hailsham, the former Lord Chancellor and I believe that he said all that has to be said. I should especially like the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), to read that speech in view of his reply to me the last time we debated that subject.
On the suggestion made by the Chief Constable to extend the powers of authorised investigators, the Secretary of State said that he was reluctant to make—indeed, would not make—so important a change in our criminal justice system. I think that I quote him correctly. But the change has already been made: the right to silence has been abrogated with regard to certain offences. If that


is too important a change to make, does the Secretary of State propose to repeal the provision already in the Act that we are discussing today?
The Act abrogates the right to silence in relation to certain offences. We are suggesting that we extend the abrogation not to less serious offences, but to more serious ones. If it is not right to extend it to the more serious offence of directing a terrorist organisation, why do we have it in relation to the financing of terrorism? The exception has already been made, the precedent has been established and there is no logic in the Secretary of State's refusal to follow that precedent.
On the other hand, I commend the Secretary of State for keeping a sympathetic mind with regard to "wire-tap evidence", as we have used that phrase. The issue is more than simply that of intercepted telephone communication; it relates to electronic surveillance generally. I noticed that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North had a generally favourable approach to it. Electronic surveillance —eavesdropping—is being used and the resulting evidence is being brought before the court. Indeed, that was one of the major sources of the evidence presented to the court to enable the remand to take place in the one case of directing terrorist organisations under section 27 that was heard by the courts in Northern Ireland as recently as last week. Apparently, some of the evidence is of conversations tape-recorded unbeknown to the suspect, the tape recordings being made by the police officers to whom he was speaking, by means of microphones concealed about their person. Electronic surveillance is therefore admissible without the battery of safeguards that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North suggested. We need to reconsider that more seriously.
A general welcome has been given to the report of Mr. Rowe. Especially as I was critical of his report on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, it is only right that I should welcome his report and say that those of my colleagues who have had the opportunity to study it in the short time in which it has been available were impressed by it. I disagree, however, with Mr. Rowe's proposals on the audiotaping of police interviews.
I acknowledge that there is a potential saving here and the potential saving is significant with regard to obviating the need for the voire dire, which is a substantial argument, but Mr. Rowe misses the point. He says that under the present system it is possible for terrorist organisations to ascertain what has been said in an interview. As he points out, that could happen because the interviewee co-operates with the terrorist organisation during a debriefing and also because a copy of the formal record of the interview can be obtained. That is correct. If the interviewee co-operates with the terrorist organisation, a certain amount of information can be obtained.
One of the grounds for police worry is that apparently the police regularly obtain information from suspects who are anxious to conceal that co-operation with the police from the terrorist organisation. I understand that such information is regularly given on the basis that it is not written down and not incorporated in the formal record of the interview. The minute one brings audiotaping into the picture, one loses that co-operation. The police say—and I have no reason to disbelieve them—that this is an important source of intelligence information. It must

therefore be given considerable weight. I find more sympathy for the view expressed by Lord Colville in earlier reports on the question of having video but not audio taping. As I have said on previous occasions, I would be prepared to look in that direction if I had to make a choice for an experiment.
Section 27 of the Act deals with the offence of directing terrorist organisations. This was a major innovation of the Act of 1991. Since then, we have complained about the failure to use the provision. As has been said, one charge has at last been brought. I shall not comment on the particular case, which is now a matter for the courts, save to say that we have no complaint about the bringing of the charge.What we do complain about, and what other hon. Members have complained about during the debate, is the apparent immunity enjoyed by the godfathers of republican terrorism.
I do not intend to cover again ground that was covered by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), but essentially the hon. Gentleman is right. Regrettably, the Secretary of State, in his intervention during the hon. Gentleman's speech, did nothing to allay people's suspicions, particularly with regard to Mr. Martin McGuinness. It is ironic that only about 10 days ago—the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—the Secretary of State himself, in a speech in Dublin, described Mr. McGuinness as a leading member of the IRA. In this context, the real question is: why has there been no follow-up, no inquiry? If this man is a leading member of the IRA, as the Secretary of State himself says, he is guilty not only of membership but of directing a terrorist organisation. I do not know anybody who doubts that. The only possible legitimate reason for failing to bring a case against McGuinness is lack of evidence, but why should there be no questioning? Why should there be no attempt to find out and to follow up the material to which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster has referred?
Then there is Mr. McGuinness's close colleague—Mr. Adams himself. The Sunday Times story last week shows clearly that Mr. Adams's close associates in his advice centres in west Belfast were key elements in the recent wave of so-called punishment shootings against people allegedly involved in drugs. One of the persons injured on that occasion said that Mr. Adams's bodyguard was the man who decided whether or not someone would be shot. Has there been any follow-up on that?
In an intervention, the Secretary of State asked the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster whether he was suggesting that the Chief Constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions are not impartial in respect of these matters. I am disturbed by a Northern Ireland press report from what I regard as an authoritative source. This report said that, following the "Cook Report", the RUC in Londonderry wanted to interview Mr. McGuinness, but that instructions came, through special branch, from higher places—the implication was that the source was political and not the Chief Constable—that he was not to be touched. That is a matter on which I should dearly love to hear the Secretary of State speak frankly.
Then there are the godfathers in Belfast, who are all well known to journalists, to the police and to members of the public. There is the commander of the IRA in Belfast, Mr. Brian Gillen; there is the IRA's Belfast intelligence officer, one of the Finnucane brothers; there is the gentleman who probably planned the Shankill road bomb, one Eddie Copeland. Why have there been no inquiries into those


people? Why have they not been questioned? Who grants such immunity? A national newspaper suggested recently that the Minister of State has told the RUC to concentrate on preventing specific incidents and to give lower priority to the targeting of IRA godfathers. Will the Minister of State comment on that in his reply?
The comparative failure to charge under section 27 reminds one of the comparative failure with regard to terrorist finances—a matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). There have been no cases. Have any accounts been seized? Has any money been recovered? The authorities have claimed that terrorist financing has been disrupted. Here I am reminded of words used in another context: where is the beef? Where is the money? Where are the proceeds? What has been seized? We need some information about that.
There is a matter that touches on the criticism in Her Majesty's inspectorate's report on the RUC. I refer to the suggestion that there was an absence of policing strategy aimed at putting terrorist criminals behind bars. Too much of the present activity appears to be intelligence oriented—aimed at spoiling terrorist operations rather than eliminating or, as the present Home Secretary said, extirpating the terrorist organisations. The reluctance to charge with regard to funding and the reluctance to use intelligence information in court points in that direction—if so, it is wrong and should be changed.
As well as being even handed in the pursuit of terrorists, the so-called "peace process"—I hope that that appears in inverted commas—must also be even handed. Many of us regard that process as being essentially bogus, for it involves making political concessions to terrorism. Not only would that be morally reprehensible; it would not be successful, for to reward terrorism would only encourage more terrorism. It would be even worse to appear to reward one terrorist faction while ignoring its rivals.
The Downing street declaration focuses essentially on the interests of one section of the community and deals only with the interests of the greater number of the community incidentally and by implication. As a consequence, it has presented itself in a lopsided manner to the public in Northern Ireland. That has accelerated what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) described in a statement on Friday as the race to achieve a balance of terror.
In that statement, my right hon. Friend said that interpretations of the declaration had missed a significant point in paragraph 10, which explains the consequences that would follow a cessation of terrorism. It draws no distinction between republican and loyalist paramilitary organisations: once a commitment to a permanent end to the use of, or support for, paramilitary violence is established and verified, any such organisation becomes eligible to enter exploratory discussions on how it can, in due course, be considered for participation in the democratic process.
It was on the basis of that reading of the declaration that my right hon. Friend felt entitled to demand an immediate halt to the race to achieve a balance of terror. I would appreciate it if the Minister, in his reply, would comment specifically on that matter, and on the construction advanced by my right hon. Friend. Failure to do so will be seen as endorsing the one-sided interpretation of the declaration and all that that entails. I would hope that the two Governments who set their hands to the declaration have thought the matter through. They have not said how

they would expect a one-sided approach to terrorism to work. Have they taken account of the possibility that one reason why republicans have not responded may be fear for their personal survival? I say that to emphasise the need for consistency.
In my view, those terrorists have not and will not respond positively. I say that because the declaration and the recent Northern Ireland Office statement stress that there will be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That means that, whatever might be discussed, there will be no change in the fundamental constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.
By acknowledging the principle of consent, the Irish Government have accepted that the views of the people of Northern Ireland are paramount, but there is still work to be done. The Irish Government have not yet put that principle into practice—that means publicly respecting the oft-repeated expression of the views of the people in favour of the Union. One cannot say that one respects people's views and, at the same time, advance proposals that run contrary to those expressed views. If one says that one accepts and respects those views, one must do so and carry that into practice. It is possible that one reason for the failure, so far, by the Irish Government to put that principle into practice is that Her Majesty's Government's endorsement of the Union has been so muted; that, too, must change.
There was one significant event in the corresponding debate last year—the contribution of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). He made a powerful speech in which he called for a unified drive against terrorism throughout the United Kingdom, under the control of a single Cabinet Minister directly responsible to the Prime Minister. That view found considerable echo on these Benches. I am sorry to say that, so far, there has been no action and the anti-terrorist drive in the past year has had the same lack of success as in previous years. We should return to that suggestion.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup also said that the politics and the use of military force must go together—in other words, they must pull in the same direction. Currently, they lack coherence. The root cause of terrorism is the hope and fear that it can achieve change. Force exercised by authority, designed to defeat that by showing it, will not achieve change. Anti-terrorist force cannot succeed if the Government's policies hint at or promote the very change in question. The ambiguity must be removed. The use of police and military force and political measures must be aligned. By all means we can couple that with giving people the opportunity of joining the political process, but that must be done not on a false basis, but on the basis of an honest appreciation of the realities.
If we encourage people to enter politics, we must show that politics in Northern Ireland can work. That means having representative political institutions which can actually do something, in which all who want to can play a meaningful part, and we in the Ulster Unionist party have done so in the blueprint for stability. It is high time that that, too, was taken up by the Government and implemented.

Mr. David Wilshire: Tonight's debate is bound to be seen by many inside and outside the House in the context of the Downing street declaration. Some people will inevitably ask whether that declaration makes the order unnecessary. Others will ask whether the order will make the peace process more difficult. However, those are not the key questions. For me, the declaration is relevant tonight only in so far as it offers one possible route to a permanent end to violence. That and only that will make the order unnecessary.
I am totally persuaded that a permanent end to violence must come first and Labour's refusal to agree to the orders by voting against them tonight plays into the hands of terrorists and signals that violence can pay if one sticks at it long enough.
For me, the key questions when deciding how to vote tonight are not about the peace process or the theory of democracy but are quite simple: is terrorism currently continuing and will the order help to counter it? Nobody who follows the events in Northern Ireland, whether living there or from across the water, can be in any doubt at all that the answer to the first question, "Is terrorism continuing?" has to be an unequivocal yes. We have heard the statistics tonight. There have been 32 murders since the declaration was signed. That is more than in the same period last year before the declaration.
We are not only talking about murder: extortion, intimidation and maiming continue. The 32 deaths are simply the tip of the iceberg. Terrorism continues and we have to address it, whatever is happening in the peace process. I am persuaded that the answer to the second question, "Will the order help to counter terrorism?" is also yes. The Secretary of State set out the case earlier this evening. It fits with my knowledge and experience. I accept that the order is necessary and I will not repeat the arguments again at this time of night.
I am only too well aware that some people would dispute my conclusions. There are those within the Labour party who believe that such powers make violence worse and that the order would lead to the abuse of power. Worse still, there are even some people in the Labour party who believe that the orders turn us into terrorists as well. Year after year, those same Labour Members have voted against these orders. That is a complete and utter disgrace. I hope that they sleep soundly in their beds, because if I opposed the orders, I would feel that I was condoning murder, maiming and extortion.
I shall spend a moment answering each of what I consider to be bogus points. The first allegation that is made against people who say as I do and vote for the orders is that it will make violence worse. As I understand the affairs of Northern Ireland, it was not the orders that caused the violence; they came about as a response to it. If I understand anything, the violence has been going on for 25 years. Yet these particular powers date back just three years, and others for 16 years. It was only after trying for nine years without them that the House took action. I believe that that is the answer to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who said, "Beware of knee-jerks." Given the nine-year delay before taking those powers, I do not judge them to be remotely a knee-jerk reaction: they are the inevitable response to people who will not respect the rule of law and the discussions in this House.

Mr. Mallon: Would the hon. Gentleman like to re-examine what he said recently—that those who oppose the Bill condone murder and extortion? In the light of the responsible attitudes that have been shown down through the years from this side of the House, would he like to rethink that statement and reflect on the enormity of it?

Mr. Wilshire: I will always reconsider what the hon. Gentleman asks me to. I do not doubt or question for one moment his sincerity and views. Similarly, I hope that he will show me the respect of believing that what I say is what I believe. I will reconsider, but I very much doubt whether in the morning I will wish to rephrase what I said.
The second allegation is that the order will offer a cloak for further abuse of power. We are all well aware of the allegations that are made about the abuse of physical and legal power, and I see no need to repeat them here. But we must also all be aware that the Government have responded to those allegations by setting up the opportunities for people to complain, for investigations to be carried out and for public reports to be made. Earlier in the debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State responded to that process. He made announcements; he announced decisions. I believe that they will go a long way to reassuring the people who are prepared to consider such issues with an open and fair mind.
The third allegation is that the order makes us as bad as terrorists. It is all too easy to deliver lectures on the theory of democracy from the relative comfort of the House and the relative safety of the mainland, but I judge that psychopathic murderers, be they acting in the name of Catholicism, Protestantism or anything else, are not amenable to rational argument and democratic debate. It was not the state that recently murdered an elderly woman. It was not the state that recently maimed a three-year-old child. It was terrorists and terrorism. No lectures on democracy will wipe those facts from the history book.
At the outset, I rejected any attempt to put tonight's debate in the context of the Downing street declaration, but there is one context that I hope that the Government may be willing to think about and act on as quickly as possible. I believe that we could and should make the future renewal of these provisions part of a package that is designed to do not the one thing that happens at the moment, but two things. The first thing that it should do—as we have been doing each year and will, I hope, continue doing until terrorism is overcome—is make it clear that we in this House are determined to resist debate by semtex, and that we are determined to prevent change coming via the barrel of a gun. But I hope that the second part of a package for future debate will present an opportunity for democratic debate in a locally elected forum in Northern Ireland. I hope that the package will ensure that there is real and proper scope for change by peaceful, agreed consent.
I support the order—perhaps with some regret, but none the less willingly. I support the belief that terrorism must never be allowed to pay or be seen to pay, or be supported by any hon. Member, regardless of political persuasion. I would support proposals to allow the people of Northern Ireland to settle their own future, through democracy, in their own Province.

Dr. Joe Hendron: I did not intend to speak, especially after the excellent analysis of the legislation presented by my hon. Friend the Member for


Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I am prompted to do so by the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). He used powerful language to condemn the murder in Armagh city of a young soldier from Cookstown, and eloquently described the funeral and the effect on the family; he used the word "scum".
In an intervention—I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing it—I said that I agreed: I, too, would use that word to describe the people who had committed the murder. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether he would also use the word to describe members of the loyalist community—the so-called loyalist paramilitaries of the UDA or the UVF. He did not answer my question. I am not criticising him, but I would have been happier if he had used the word in that context.
I am not in the numbers game, but I believe that more people have died as a result of violence in my constituency than in any other constituency in Northern Ireland—or, for that matter, in any other part of these islands. I am talking about people who have been murdered. We have heard a good deal of talk about Sinn Fein tonight; most of its leaders are within yards of my advice centre in west Belfast, as is the advice centre—I hesitate to use the term—of the Sinn Fein president, Mr. Adams.
Not very far away—just over the so-called peace line, but also in my constituency—are the hard men of the UDA and UVF. On both sides of that so-called peace line, there has been a frightening number of murders over the years. Unfortunately, I cannot give the exact number. The people who live there worry every day and every night about their families—their sons and daughters.
I, too, have stood beside the graves into which young people have been lowered, and have seen the tears of families—not only as a public representative, but as a medical practitioner in the area for many years.
I understand the position of the police, and have great sympathy for them. Policing a divided community is fraught with difficulty. However, I must make a couple of comments about the Castlereagh interrogation centre.
I deeply resent any action or legislation that in any way helps a paramilitary organisation, be it the IRA or the UDA. The vast majority of the police are doing their best in very difficult circumstances. But it is a fact that, over the years, people have been assaulted in the Castlereagh interrogation centre, or holding centre; I do not mind what it is called.
I take no pleasure from saying it, but many of my constituents have been assaulted over the years. Some may have been guilty of terrible crimes, but many were not. That is why I make my point about helping the godfathers of the paramilitary to exploit young people and bring them into their organisations.
Hon. Members will remember the Bennett report, produced some years ago, about people assaulted in Castlereagh. The last thing I want to do is undermine the police, but it must be said that in all those years not one policeman has been charged and found guilty of assault in Castlereagh. We are all aware of the number of cases that have been settled out of court.
Police and soldiers carry out searches every day of the week. Such searches are necessary—we all understand that. Very often, information is obtained in places such as Castlereagh. Sometimes, it is correct; but sometimes it is wrong. Often a young person under pressure will not give information about a paramilitary colleague. Instead, he will give information about some other family—he will name

some family who are not involved. As a result, police or soldiers will arrive at their house at 5 o'clock in the morning and a search will be carried out.
I understand that. But let me emphasise to the Secretary of State and the House that when such a mistake is made, it is simple for either a senior Army or a senior police person to call to see that family in the following few days to say sorry and to explain that the wrong information had been received. This has to do with the dignity of the family and of young people. Young people become easy prey to paramilitaries. Over the years, I have found that such situations, in which there is inevitable confrontation with the security forces, only lead to young people joining the IRA or the UDA. I am sure that the House will agree that that is what the paramilitary organisations want. They want confrontation with the security forces. That is the history of terrorist organisations around the world. It is important that the Government and those in charge of the security forces should be aware of that.
I totally support the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh about the intimidation of solicitors, but I would like to add one point that is a wee bit opposite to it. We all want law and order in Northern Ireland and we want the paramilitaries off our backs. However, as I have said many times over the years, it is unfortunate that the great legal profession in Northern Ireland, for which I have tremendous admiration—the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland representing the solicitors and the Bar Association of Northern Ireland representing the barristers—has never on one occasion that I can recall over the past 20 or 25 years pointed to the harassment or to the beatings that have taken place in Castlereagh. Those organisations have never acknowledged it in any public way—it would have come out in various court cases—which I deeply regret.
I fully understand the great difficulties that the police have and it is fair to say that the people on the ground, including those in west Belfast, will support the police as long as they are seen to be supporting the people on the ground.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I have attended many debates on Northern Ireland over the past six years—probably as many as any other Back-Bench Member. In that time, I do not think that I have ever heard as impassioned a speech as that made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). I have come to appreciate the problems faced by the Protestant community in Northern Ireland and the violence that is directed towards it. However, there was a very meaningful moment in the hon. Gentleman's speech when the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) intervened—a moment to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West referred. He asked the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster to respond in a similar way to the activities of the UFF and the UVF as to those of the IRA. We did not hear such a response.
Although I expect members of the Ulster Unionist parties to stress IRA violence and members of the SDLP to stress the violence of the UFF and UVF, I also expect all hon. Members to stress in their speeches that they condemn all the violence equally. I hope that our attitude is that we are opposed to violence from any avenue—from any sectarian force or any force involved in the state—and that we must seek to stop it together. That is more important


than the measure that we are discussing or where we stand in relation to the prevention of terrorism provisions and their extension, whether we are for or against them. Arguments can be made for either case, but, whatever our attitude to the provisions, we should condemn utterly the people involved in violent and sectarian activity, from whichever side it comes. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster will do just that so that the passion that he expressed in cases relevant to his own community becomes more broadly based. I would also ask representatives of the SDLP to do likewise.

Mr. Roger Stott: I have listened to almost the entire debate, except when I made a brief visit to the toilet. I listened in particular to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), whom I have known for many years and whom I respect. I hope that on reflection, in the cool of the morning, he will feel it necessary to withdraw or at least to amend some of his comments which, I believe, were directed either at the Social Democratic and Labour party or at myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I shall deal with that matter in a moment.
I wish that we did not have to renew the prevention of terrorism Act and the emergency provisions year after year. I look around the Chamber and I think that, apart from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), only my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and I were in the House 21 years ago when the legislation was passed.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: Nonsense.

Mr. Stott: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Let us say that not many of us were here at that time. In any event, we have witnessed the renewal ever since.
I have listened carefully to the speeches made in the debate and, as is now traditional, we heard the Government recite their standard justification for the emergency powers, despite the fact that the legislation has patently failed to suppress terrorist activity in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne in particular implied that the Labour party's opposition to the renewal of the provisions was evidence that we are soft on terrorism. That is a gross misrepresentation of the truth, and I refute it. It is fair to say that all parties and all hon. Members are opposed to paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland. The very nature of the campaign to seek political ends through violence must be abhorrent to any democrats. To suggest that the Labour party in any way condones unspeakable acts of violence is to make a cheap political point of an issue that is too important to be reduced to such a level.
The Labour party is united in condemnation of all acts of terrorism, from whatever quarter they come. We do not disagree with the Government that terrorists need to be defeated and brought to justice, but we disagree on the method by which that objective is achieved. That is perfectly legitimate. Conservatives may not approve, but surely they cannot deny that we have a right to examine what the Government are proposing.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, I support and commend the work of the security services, the judiciary and the prison service,

representatives of all of whom my hon. Friend and I have met and will continue to meet. They deserve our support for doing their job in a dangerous and stressful environment.
In a democracy, the duty of the Government is to protect the civil rights of their citizens. If those rights are to be infringed or suspended, there must be overriding and compelling cause.
We accept that there may be a need for emergency powers to counteract the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. However, we believe that the powers in the emergency provisions Acts weaken the core principles on which civilised society is based. That in itself is of assistance to the terrorists in their evil campaign of violence.
Regrettably, we must continue to oppose the legislation while the power of internment remains on the statute book. In spite of what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said in his thoughtful contribution, the power of the Executive to imprison without charge or trial is an affront to democratic principles. It places the Executive above the rule of law, and undermines the criminal justice system—the very system that the terrorists are waging a campaign to defeat.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North outlined in detail why the Labour party favours the introduction of video and audio taping of interrogations in the holding centres. As the Government's own adviser has now argued, mechanisms can be established to limit the disclosure of such tapes so as to protect both the detainee and any sensitive information. The introduction of those safeguards in the holding centres would protect the security services from false allegations by detainees, and would immeasurably improve community relations. The safeguard of audio taping terrorist suspects is already in place here in Great Britain, and the Government have still failed to provide a reasonable justification for their refusal to introduce similar safeguards in Northern Ireland.
After listening to the contributions to the debate, and having further considered the report by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, I tell the House that if the Government again refuse to introduce audio and video recordings, suspicion in Northern Ireland will be compounded. That is all the more important because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has already explained, regrettably the security forces do not have the support of the whole community in Northern Ireland. In order to build up trust and confidence in the forces of law and order and in the judiciary, justice must not only be seen to be done but be seen inevitably to be done.
The is why the Labour party believes that mechanisms to hold members of the security services properly accountable, too, are vital. No one must appear to be above the law. We support the calls by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for its powers of investigation to be strengthened, to enforce its credibility and effectiveness. Clearly, as has already been said, the reason why so few complaints are upheld against the police and the Army needs to be further investigated. Reforms such as those advocated by David Hewitt and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints need to be considered as a matter of urgency by the Secretary of State.
The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 was passed quickly through Parliament 21 years ago as a temporary measure in extreme circumstances. The very fact that it is still on the statute book is damning evidence


of the ineffectiveness of the powers within it. I can tell the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North a little earlier, that the Labour party has for some time been calling on the Government to join us in developing a more coherent and effective counter-terrorist policy, with due regard to the basic civil rights of the citizens of this country. Thus far, the Government have refused to countenance such a review.
Rightly, the Downing street joint declaration has been mentioned. It is my view and that of my party—certainly it was the view of my late lamented leader, John Smith —that the declaration is to be welcomed. Indeed, it is the only game in town as a starter for the peace process. It is regrettable that Sinn Fein has not responded more positively to the clarified Downing street declaration.
It is also regrettable that the DUP and its leader have made this an issue in the European elections. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is stomping around the Province saying that a vote for him is a vote against the joint declaration. On television, when he left Downing street he said that he would be back on 10 June with a mandate from the people of Northern Ireland because he is standing in the election against the Downing street declaration. He is making it an issue.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stott: No, I will not give way; I do not have time.
If that is the attitude of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, I suggest that he look at page 24 of the Labour party European election manifesto where we clearly state our support for the Government's join declaration. Every Labour candidate who stands in the election will be standing on the manifesto. Labour candidates in the rest of the United Kingdom will get millions of votes for standing on our manifesto which expressly supports the joint statement.

Mr. John D. Taylor: How many votes in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Stott: At the previous election, the leader of the DUP polled 160,110 votes; the Labour candidates polled 6 million votes. We will probably do even better than that; we will probably get up to 8 million votes. If the DUP wants a referendum on the joint statement, the Labour party will give them one.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many votes the Labour party got in Northern Ireland in the last election? Does the issue of consent mean anything? Is the Labour party looking for the consent of the people of Northern Ireland? How much consent will his party get in Northern Ireland at the election?

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman knows that the British Labour party does not organise in Northern Ireland, and he knows the reasons why we do not do so. The hon. Gentleman and his party cannot have it both ways. He claims his loyalty and his Britishness. The British people will have their say on 9 June, and they will vote for candidates who support the joint declaration. [Interruption.] That certainly livened up the debate.
For the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and I have given, it is

regrettable—I say this sincerely—that we cannot find a consensus in the House on these issues, and therefore we will reluctantly vote against the order tonight.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I shall forgo the pleasure of a discourse about the relative merits of the manifestos for the forthcoming European elections and concentrate on the provisions before the House.
Tonight, the House has had an opportunity to give its full and open consideration to the powers in place to continue the fight against terrorists from both sides in Northern Ireland. I agree with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate that, sadly, these powers remain necessary. They will be used resolutely for so long, but only so long, as terrorism persists. They are kept under review and are subject to the annual review process, which we have been debating tonight.
This year, our debate has been informed by the published reports of three independent and eminent figures. All three are welcome and objective reports. They will be studied with care. That such reports are available is a testament to the Government's determination that our security policy and its implementation should be as open as possible.
It is essential that those not involved in pursuing their aims by killing people should have nothing to fear. It is important that they should have confidence in the processes involved in defeating terrorism.
The nine Back-Bench Members who have spoken this evening raised many valuable points and I shall seek to touch on as many as I can in my remaining time. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Wigan for the joint declaration. At least there is unity in the House about the overwhelming desire for peace in Northern Ireland and an end to the killing.
The hon Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), raised the question of codes of practice. I remind him that statutory codes of practice dealing with civil and criminal proceedings governing the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects in police custody came into effect on 1 January this year.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has also decided to introduce, under sections 61 and 62, a code of practice to cover the police and armed forces' powers of stop, search and seizure under part II of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. A draft code is in preparation.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North gave as his chief reason for urging that the Opposition should vote against annual renewal the fact that he opposed the continued part played by detention in the 1991 Act. The making of this order has no effect on its availability, which can continue to be activated by separate order unless and until principal legislation removes it from the Act. To justify opposing this order by saying that Opposition Members are against detention is disingenuous nonsense and simply does not wash. When the time comes, I am sure that hon. Members will be clear about that and will have no difficulty in supporting the order.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also referred to video recording of people interviewed in the


holding centres. It is not a question of what the Chief Constable wants. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have to make very careful judgments. We have to weigh up all the issues. On some occasions, we disagree with what the Chief Constable wants. Earlier tonight, my right hon. and learned Friend announced that some of the Chief Constable's proposals for the review of the law were not acceptable and gave reasons.
On the question of people detained for interview in holding centres, my right hon. and learned Friend and I are convinced that for the time being—we keep the matter under review—there would be grave repercussions for the fight against terrorism if tapes of any kind were to find their way into the legal system. Those in custody would know it and would be fearful of the consequences of disobeying the instructions of their terrorist organisations not to co-operate with the police. That important consideration must weigh heavily with the House.
We have heard from many hon. Members about the horror and evil of terrorism in Northern Ireland and the indiscriminate killing there. It would be a serious error of judgment were we to disregard the level of that violence and the advice which the Chief Constable gives to my right hon. and learned Friend as his principal security adviser.

Mr. McNamara: What is different in principle between audio recordings in Paddington Green police station and those in Castlereagh police station for people accused of terrorist offences?

Sir John Wheeler: I can help the hon. Gentleman with that. I am glad to learn that he has visited Castlereagh holding centre. It is important that hon. Members who are concerned with the issues should be able to see for themselves what goes on in that centre. There is no mystery about the operation of that centre or about the work of the RUC.
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has not yet had the time to visit Paddington Green police station in my constituency—which I do regularly—and discuss that very point with the police officers responsible for that establishment. The two police stations deal with totally different terrorist situations. People in Great Britain are not being murdered by terrorist gangs because of the information which they give to police. People in Northern Ireland are liable to be murdered by terrorist gangs.
That it is the principal reason why, for the time being, the advice that my right hon. and learned Friend and I are resolved to accept is that we should continue with the present arrangements for the safety of the people who are subject to that interview process.

Mr. Trimble: I wish merely to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has only two minutes left. I posed a very important question to him concerning the interpretation of paragraph 10 of the joint declaration which he must deal with.

Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman did indeed raise that very important question which I shall come to at once in view of the time. I can confirm that for our part we stand by paragraph 10 of the joint declaration which calls for

a permanent end to the use of, or support for, paramilitary violence. They"—
that is, the British and Irish Governments—
confirm that, in these circumstances, democratically mandated parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process are free to participate fully in democratic politics and to join in dialogue in due course between the Governments and the political parties on the way ahead.
I confirm to the hon. Gentleman the point which he seeks.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Wheeler: I shall not give way now. The terrorists are—

Mr. John D. Taylor: rose—

Sir John Wheeler: I shall not give way, as I have but a minute left.
The terrorists are a small and unrepresentative minority of the people in Northern Ireland. They are abhorred by the overwhelming majority, both within Northern Ireland and further afield. They have nothing to say. They will not win. It is our duty, and one which we will not shirk in the defeat of terrorism—

It being three hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [19 May]:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 154.

Division No. 258]
[11.28 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert (Tortay)
Clappison, James


Alton, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Coe, Sebastian


Ancram, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Congdon, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkins, Robert
Couchman, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cran, James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beggs, Roy
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan, Alan


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dunn, Bob


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Elletson, Harold


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fabricant, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fishburn, Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Forth, Eric


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burns, Simon
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butler, Peter
French, Douglas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gale, Roger


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gallie, Phil






Gardiner, Sir George
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Garnier, Edward
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
Merchant, Piers


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moate, Sir Roger


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Nick
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Irvine


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hendry, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Horam, John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rendel, David


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Richards, Rod


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)
Sims, Roger


Key, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kilfedder, Sir James
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Speed, Sir Keith


Kirkwood, Archy
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spink, Dr Robert


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spring, Richard


Knox, Sir David
Sproat, Iain


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Steen, Anthony


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Stephen, Michael


Legg, Barry
Streeter, Gary


Leigh, Edward
Sweeney, Walter


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sykes, John


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Luff, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lynne, Ms Liz
Thomason, Roy


McCrea, Rev William
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


MacKay, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Maclean, David
Thurnham, Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Trend, Michael


Maginnis, Ken
Trimble, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Trotter, Neville


Major, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Malone, Gerald
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mans, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Marland, Paul
Walden, George


Marlow, Tony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Wallace, James


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waller, Gary


Mates, Michael
Ward, John





Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wolfson, Mark


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Whittingdale, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Widdecombe, Ann



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Bowen Wells.


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Hanson, David


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hardy, Peter


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov?try NE)
Hendron, Dr Joe


Allen, Graham
Heppell, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Armstrong, Hilary
Hinchliffe, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Home Robertson, John


Barnes, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Barron, Kevin
Hoyle, Doug


Battle, John
Hutton, John


Bayley, Hugh
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Jamieson, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Jowell, Tessa


Benton, Joe
Kilfoyle, Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Berry, Roger
Lewis, Terry


Betts, Clive
Livingstone, Ken


Blunkett, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Boateng, Paul
Loyden, Eddie


Boyes, Roland
McAllion, John


Bradley, Keith
McAvoy, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McCartney, Ian


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Macdonald, Calum


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
McFall, John


Burden, Richard
McGrady, Eddie


Byers, Stephen
McKelvey, William


Callaghan, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McNamara, Kevin


Chisholm, Malcolm
McWilliam, John


Clapham, Michael
Madden, Max


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Mahon, Alice


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Mallon, Seamus


Clelland, David
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michael, Alun


Cohen, Harry
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Milburn, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Miller, Andrew


Corbyn, Jeremy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Corston, Ms Jean
Morgan, Rhodri


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morley, Elliot


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Mullin, Chris


Dalyell, Tam
Murphy, Paul


Davidson, Ian
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
O'Hara, Edward


Dewar, Donald
Olner, William


Dixon, Don
O'Neill, Martin


Donohoe, Brian H.
Parry, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Patchett, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Pickthall, Colin


Eagle, Ms Angela
Pike, Peter L.


Enright, Derek
Pope, Greg


Etherington, Bill
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Foulkes, George
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Fyfe, Maria
Primarolo, Dawn


Galbraith, Sam
Purchase, Ken


Galloway, George
Raynsford, Nick


Gerrard, Neil
Reid, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Godsiff, Roger
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Gordon, Mildred
Ruddock, Joan


Graham, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Simpson, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Skinner, Dennis


Hall, Mike
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)






Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Stevenson, George
Worthington, Tony


Stott, Roger
Wray, Jimmy


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wright, Dr Tony


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Noes:


Watson, Mike
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. Alan Meale.


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

MILK QUOTAS (ITALY)

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6428/94, relating to the application of the milk quota scheme in Italy; and endorses the line that the Government is taking in challenging the proposal that Italy should receive its additional milk quota in full for 1994–95.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

Statutory Instruments, &c

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.) and Order [10 May].

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY GRANT

That the Special Grant Report (Metropolitan Railway Grant) (House of Commons Paper No. 370), which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to
Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

HOUSING MANAGEMENT

That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Housing Management) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

INFORMATION

Ordered,
That Mr. Harold Elletson be discharged from the Information Committee and Mr. Rod Richards be added to the Committee. —[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Rwanda

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Tony Worthington: Before the House adjourns, I wish to discuss the Government's policy on Rwanda, where we are confronted with a human tragedy on an unbelievable scale.
A few weeks ago, it would not have seemed possible for the world to throw up something worse than Bosnia, Sudan, Somalia or Angola, but it has. The scale of the slaughter in Rwanda is now reputed to be of about 500,000 people. Many hundreds of thousands of Rwanda's citizens have taken refuge in Tanzania and Burundi and other countries that are among the poorest in the world. The Red Cross has described it as the largest single movement of refugees in the history of the Red Cross. Five hundred thousand people is the equivalent of the deaths of all the people in Greater Edinburgh. In terms of the much greater population of Britain, it is the equivalent of 4 million people dying and 16 million becoming refugees or being displaced. Can one imagine tragedy on such a scale in Britain? Moreover, there is no sign that the violence is at an end, and there are major fears that Burundi, which has exactly the same tensions, will explode again. After all, just a few weeks ago Burundi was the major source of our fears about those two desperately poor and unhappy countries.
I intend to be very critical of other people, but it is right that Members of Parliament should start by criticising themselves. An unbelievable atrocity has been going on for months; yet this is our first opportunity to debate it. There has been no Government statement, and as yet the House as a whole has displayed very little interest, despite the fact that Rwanda dwarfs Bosnia in terms of casualties. At the tail end of a parliamentary day, in the minor event of an Adjournment debate, we are able to discuss the issue only because of my luck in a raffle. The luck of the draw determines whether an atrocity in which half a million people have died is debated in the House. We must look at our procedures and attitudes.
We must also admit with shame the racism that is involved. It is inconceivable that an atrocity in which half a million white people had died would not have been extensively debated in the House. In the press there has been a terrible tendency to dismiss these tragic events as just tribalism, with "What can you expect from Africans?" as the subtext. By calling this tribalism, we are, in effect, blaming all the people of Rwanda, whereas it is clear that it is vicious political violence led by the Rwandan Government or their agents. We justify our inaction by pretending that all the people of Rwanda are to blame. Even the United Nations reports that reliable indications are that the killing was started by unruly members of the presidential guard. Tribalism is not a black man's invention. The holocaust was European. Bosnia is tribal, and the Balkans is a powder keg for that reason. South Africa has just emerged from domination by a white tribe. To say, as some have said, that the United Nations should pull out because we cannot understand African tribalism is to invent a cosy excuse for ourselves.
Much of the seeming tribalism of Africa has its roots in European exploitation, which used ethnic groups such as the Asians or, as in Rwanda, the Tutsis as an elite.


Genocide is certainly involved, but the wellspring for it is the lust for political power. If that means wiping out Hutus as well as Tutsis, it is done. The country's Prime Minister and other members of its Government were slaughtered by this element in the presidential guard. We should not see the slaughter in Rwanda as primitive tribalism. It is politics —brutal politics practised overwhelmingly by one side.
There is much evidence that the slaughter by the Rwanda Government was premeditated to obliterate their political opponents, whether Tutsis or Hutus. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), I attended a House of Commons meeting at which the organisation Africa Rights presented to a large gathering its analysis of physical liquidation of the political opposition to the dead President and the present, self-declared interim Government and the genocide against the Tutsi people as a carefully planned strategy designed in advance. No one in the room dissented from that analysis. Do the Government agree that the so-called Rwandan Government are overwhelmingly to blame?
We must not take refuge just in discussing aid—justifying our actions, or inaction, by saying how much aid we are giving, commendable though that may be. This is politics, and it is foreign policy which is involved. What are we doing in our foreign policy to prevent fiascos of this kind and to bring under control those that do occur? We have to condemn the members of the United Nations Security Council for inactivity and ineptitude. As a member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom must take its fair share of the blame. Just why did we back the decision virtually to pull the United Nations out on 21 April? What an encouragement that must have been to the butchers. The world watched horrified, and it took until 16 May for the decision to be reversed. What was our position on that? We know that New Zealand and Nigeria were active in reversing the decision, but what were we doing? Why have the Government not sought to make a statement in the House on this enormous issue? Why did we authorise the withdrawal of the United Nations instead of augmenting the forces? We must have on our conscience the killing of citizens who would have been saved had the UN presence been augmented.
We must also condemn the United States for its strange behaviour in stopping the rapid deployment of troops once the UN Security Council had decided that up to 5,500 troops had to go in. We are suffering badly because of the American miscalculation in Somalia—thousands are now dying because of that procrastination. I hope that the Minister will say when he expects the troops to be deployed. The UN took the decision that those troops were to be deployed. When will they be deployed and from which countries will they come? Did we support the United States in that delay and, if so, why? Is it not realised just how much the authority ,of the United States is undermined when a UN resolution is passed and then held up by the United States and others?
We must also be critical of the French for their reported role in arming the Rwanda Government, alongside—it is reported—the Egyptians and the South Africans. When they armed the Rwanda Government, they must have known that they were a genocidal Government who would use the arms on their own people. What representations have we made to the French about that, or do we have to shut up because of our own dependence on arms sales?
Above all, we must condemn the Rwanda Government who—obscenely, at present—sit on the UN Security

Council. Why is a self-proclaimed Government, who are without authority and are committing genocide, allowed to remain part of the highest authority in the world? Why are they not condemned? What action are the Government and the world taking to express their outrage at the acts of the Rwanda Government, their army and their appalling militias? Why are we being so polite to such killers?
In a parliamentary answer to me, the Minister said that the Foreign Affairs Council appealed to all parties to bring an end to the genocide. He used the word "genocide" and it is admitted that it is genocide, but why does the UN resolution pull back from saying "genocide"? The UN convention on genocide was declared because we were never going to stand aside again: in 1948, the charter on genocide said that we would never stand aside again while genocide occurred. Now we do not even have the courage to use the word in a UN resolution.
Some of what we must do has to be long term. There have been too many UN fiascos like this one. But when we refer to UN fiascos, we must face the fact that a UN fiasco is our fiasco. We cause the UN to be inept. When will we face up to the fact that the UN charter, which states that we can act only through the Government of a country, can be an obstacle to stopping slaughter? Surely there have to be occasions when the UN must act first because the cause of the problem is the Government of the country or, as in Somalia, the lack of a Government. When are we going to give the UN Secretary-General powers to act and, if necessary, justify himself later? We cannot deal with wars or famines through committees that meet occasionally. I gather that the UN Security Council will meet to review Rwanda again not later than 20 June. That is a ludicrous way of conducting business and it helps only those who are carrying out ethnic cleansing. We must also look at the framework of the UN charter.
There seems to be general agreement that the Rwanda Government, and their army and militia, are overwhelmingly responsible for initiating and perpetuating the atrocities. Yet there seems to be some kind of belief that the UN has to be even handed in this matter. Why? We must find a way to give the United Nations Secretary-General his own rapid response force for such situations, so that problems can be nipped in the bud or at least contained —a force of people whose loyalty is to the United Nations, who know the conditions under which they join and who could be deployed instantly and face the risks associated with such a task. The business of touting round the world for troops and then having all the problems associated with incoherent command structures is not good enough. We now need to know the time scale for the deployment of troops.
Just what are we saying at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights emergency meeting which is being held today to debate Rwanda? Is there a Minister there to show the seriousness with which we regard the issue? Are we threatening to activate the 1948 convention on genocide? Has it ever been activated? We are signatories to it. In the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, we affirm that genocide is a crime under international law which we undertake to prevent and to punish. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the Rwandan Government intend to destroy the Tutsis and any of their political opponents. Has there ever been a clearer example of genocide? What is the point of these conventions if we do not take them seriously?
Surely events in Rwanda have convinced us that there has to be an international court of criminal justice. The people who set this madness loose have to be brought to trial. At the UN Commission on Human Rights, we need to appoint special rapporteurs as the dimensions of this horror need to be fully documented. The presence of international observers and speedy deployments of civilian police monitors will save lives and document human rights abuses.
I have not so far mentioned aid because I do not want the Government to take refuge in pretending that the world's response has to be limited to aid. I would be the first to mention, however, the wonderful efforts of the Red Cross and all the relief organisations that have acted swiftly and heroically. I mention in particular the 29 Red Cross people left in Rwanda, 10 more living in border areas and the two from Médecins Sans Frontières in France who were left in Rwanda. Their contribution has been simply magnificent. The best tribute that we can pay them is to do our job as they have done theirs under infinitely more difficult circumstances. To mention one example, Oxfam is the lead agency in providing water to 300,000 people at the Benako camp in Tanzania. It beggars imagination how one can try to provide for the needs of 300,000 people in a place where refugees suddenly decide to settle.
The needs will be colossal for months, perhaps years. Will the Minister give us a full report on the scale of the problem and what is being done to fill the gaps in food and other pipelines such as transport, water and provision of materials for shelter? Just what will be the role of the troops in arranging for the free passage of relief supplies and how will the United Nations arrange for the safety of those working for such organisations? Is it intended that safe areas will be established throughout Rwanda and not just in the border areas?
On the preventive side, what is being done to ensure that the problem does not spread to Burundi? Just a few weeks ago, Burundi had the same problems of relationship, which were seen as the major threat. In the face of reports of systematic extrajudicial killings in Burundi, the 1994 session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights failed to appoint a special rapporteur. What is being done now? In this emergency are we going to pay more attention to what the UN specialist organisations are doing? In my analysis of these tragedies, including the ones that I visited, some organisations, such as the World Health Organisation, consistently underperform. We want to know what is being done to ensure that they perform in the way that the non-governmental organisations perform.
In the long term, we must also look at the underlying causes. The number one underlying cause in this case is that Rwanda, the most densely populated country in Africa, is grindingly poor. I want to hear from the Government about Britain's position in these African tragedies. Why do we seem to be so silent? Just how do we justify our permanent seat on the Security Council when we have so little to contribute in the continent where we were the dominant European power? I look forward to the Minister's reply.

12 midnight

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has brought to the attention of the House a matter of great tragedy, and I am pleased to respond this evening to give an indication—I hope that it is a full one—of the Government's position.
All of us share the horror felt around the world at the appalling events in Rwanda in recent weeks. The images of mass killing, butchery, hopelessness and despair go to every heart. The reaction of decent men and women everywhere is that the United Nations should do something —anything—to protect the innocent caught up in the spiral of violence in Rwanda. All of us share the anger and frustration of seeing such things take place without being able to take effective action to step in and bring them to an immediate end. The fighting and the killings are continuing.
The Government's policy is to support all efforts to bring an end to the conflict and to the atrocities, and to give all the help that we can to the humanitarian relief effort. We are playing our full part in the efforts of the international community to achieve those ends.

Mr. Worthington: rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall move fast to try to cover most of the hon. Gentleman's points.
The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda —UNAMIR—was established by a Security Council resolution in October 1993 at the requests of both the Government of Rwanda and the Rwandan Patriotic Front to monitor the Arusha agreement, which had been signed in August of that year.
Given the political will for peace in Rwanda, the Security Council agreed that a United Nations peacekeeping force should be deployed. There was, at that time, a measure of hope and optimism. The peacekeeping force, therefore, had a clear, carefully defined mandate; it had precise objectives and a timetable of two years, after which time democratic elections would have placed Rwanda firmly on the path to peace and, it was hoped, prosperity. Most important, the force also had the consent of both parties.
The United Nations was asked, and was able to respond to the call, to go to Rwanda because of its greatest asset —its impartiality. It was accepted by both sides and, indeed, was invited in because it was neutral. The experience of Somalia shows how rapidly the United Nations can get sucked into a war once it appears prepared to compromise on that point of impartiality. Its recognised impartiality has enabled the UN to help end conflicts in El Salvador, Cambodia, Namibia and Mozambique. I cannot emphasise too strongly the need for the consent of the leaders of the parties to a conflict for the United Nations to operate successfully.
As we know all too well, the disaster that befell Rwanda in early April made it impossible for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda to fulfil its mandate. Instead of disarming soldiers from each side in preparation for elections, the UN troops in Kigali and the surrounding areas, who were, of course, only lightly armed, suddenly found themselves in the crossfire of a bloody war. Some of them found that they had become targets, as they witnessed


the abduction and killing of 11 of their Belgian counterparts, and four Ghanaian solders have since been killed.
The Security Council was therefore faced with a very difficult decision: UNAMIR no longer enjoyed the consent of the parties to do what it was sent to Rwanda to do. It was not equipped to enforce a peace. That would have required resources that were simply not available. Nor, of course, would it have been responsible for UNAMIR to withdraw altogether.
On 21 April, the Security Council agreed unanimously to maintain a presence of 270 UNAMIR troops and to give it a mandate to concentrate on helping to negotiate a ceasefire, to assist to the extent feasible with the humanitarian relief and to monitor the situation generally. That reduced presence was the maximum that could enjoy consent on the ground.
However, the Security Council continued to follow the situation closely, and the United Kingdom was at the forefront of those insisting that the United Nations should remain engaged to the maximum extent feasible. Our representative at the UN argued strongly that withdrawal would be totally irresponsible. We supported the further decision increasing the authorised strength of UNAMIR to 5,500 and giving it an additional mandate to support and protect civilians at risk and provide security for humanitarian operations inside the country.
It is, however, essential that further deployments are properly planned and executed. As a first step, more than 100 UNAMIR observers now in Nairobi will return to Kigali; the Ghanaian mechanised battalion will also be brought up to strength—800 men. The Secretary-General will report as soon as possible on the next phase of UNAMIR's deployment, taking account of the cooperation of the parties, progress towards a ceasefire and the availability of resources.
I must emphasise that there is no question of UNAMIR's providing an interposition force in the civil war without a full ceasefire between the parties. UNAMIR's task will be to provide a protective presence for civilians caught up in the horrific atrocities. That will require the consent of the opposing factions. The Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping arrived in Rwanda today in an effort to achieve that consent.
The hon. Gentleman asked me which side the Government considered to be most to blame for the atrocities. Rwanda has had a tragic history of ethnic-political violence since its independence. Both the Hutu and the Tutsi have been guilty of ethnic violence in the past. In the current conflict, it appears that the worst atrocities have occurred in the areas controlled by forces of the interim Government, although there have also been reports of killings in Rwanda Patriotic Front areas. It is essential that all in a position to do so take immediate, effective action to halt the killings: we have made that clear to all the parties.
When asking me to apportion blame, the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that, whatever our personal views, the UN must operate with the consent of the opposing factions. That is less achievable if blame is apportioned by the Government or the UN. It is not a question of being even handed.
In parallel with the deployment of the UN forces, there are political developments. The UN, the Organisation of African Unity and the regional governments have been trying to bring about a ceasefire and relaunch peace

negotiations. Those efforts have so far been unsuccessful, but we and our partners in the European Union support all efforts to bring the two parties back to the negotiating table. The Foreign Ministers of the European Union issued a declaration on 16 May expressing their support, and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has written to President Museveni of Uganda and President Mwinyi of Tanzania to express the British Government's appreciation of their efforts. We urge all parties to return to the Arusha agreement of August last year, which still offers the best available basis for national reconciliation.
Although I wish to deal with the political aspect, I must say a word about humanitarian relief. Since the start of the emergency, we have committed more than £4.5 million bilaterally in emergency aid. Initially, we gave support to those fleeing the violence by granting funds, through the British non-governmental organisations Action Aid, CARE and Oxfam, to pre-position relief items in the region and provide medical assistance. Then, following the massive influx of refugees into northern Tanzania at the end of April, we acted very quickly to provide further assistance for those in need, funding two British Red Cross relief flights and a further flight consigning technical equipment and personnel to set up an airbridge in Mwanza to facilitate an increased UNHCR airlift operation. We are continuing to support that effort, and have since provided more equipment and personnel to maintain the operation and ensure its continuing effectiveness. Last week, we agreed to help UNHCR by obtaining, in Britain, a Bailey bridge, which is urgently required close to the Benako refugee camp in northern Tanzania, where the largest number of refugees is located. That will speed up the relief effort. As I said at Question Time yesterday, we have provided the Save the Children Fund with support for its work with the Lutheran World Service in Uganda to collect and bury the bodies that have appeared around the north-west shores of Lake Victoria.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on any possible gaps in the aid pipeline. We are informed that, despite major logistical problems, the world food programme is maintaining basic food supplies into all the refugee camps, which, as at mid-May, contain 322,000 refugees. In addition, it has been moving supplies into north and south Rwanda for another 200,000 refugees and displaced people. That has been achieved by a combination of local purchasing, borrowing from existing emergency operations and by taking advantage of the very generous gesture by the Government of Tanzania, taxed as they are with their own internal drought problems, to advance 5,600 tonnes of maize from their reserves. I am also glad to say that the Overseas Development Administration has agreed to provide United Kingdom-made grinding mills to produce maize flour in support of that, which will be flown to Tanzania very shortly.
This week, an ODA humanitarian assessment mission is visiting the region. It will assess the impact of the emergency aid that we and others have provided and it will determine priorities for future support. It will be reporting back on Friday. Rwanda, especially, is likely to need external help to cope with the longer-term aftermath of the dreadful crisis. When that stage is reached, we shall review the situation with our European Union partners and other donors. A European Union ministerial troika mission to assess requirements is being planned. The priority must be to alleviate the immediate suffering. I hope that the


political and humanitarian measures that I have described will provide a practical demonstration of the Government's commitment to that end.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve midnight.